Several new green patent complaints were filed in March and April in the area of LEDs.

 

LEDs

Aurora LED Technology, Inc. et al. v. Putco, Inc.

This lawsuit was filed March 27, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of Putco’s U.S. Patent No. 9,243,796 (‘796 Patent) and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. D808,049 (‘049 Patent).

Aurora alleges that Putco’s Prolux Zero Space and F1 LED kit infringe the ‘049 Patent.

The ‘049 Patent is a design patent entitled “LED car light” and the ‘796 Patent is a utility patent entitled “LED lamp with a flexible heat sink.”

 

D3 LED, LLC v. Revolution Display, LLC et al.

D3 sued Revolution Display April 3, 2018, asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,948,450 (‘450 Patent).

The ‘450 Patent is entitled “Apparatus and method for allowing display modules to communicate information about themselves to other display modules in the same display panel” and directed to a module-based display panel.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the complaint alleges that defendants’ LED digital display module called the M8 Distribution Platform infringes the ‘450 Patent.

 

ETi Solid State Lighting, Inc. v. Costless Lighting, Inc.

In this patent infringement action, ETi asserts two patents relating to flush mount LED lighting products against Costless Lighting.

The complaint was filed March 26, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,500,352 and 9,541,270 both entitled “Integral LED light fixture” and directed to an integral LED light fixture for installation in an incandescent light bulb socket including a housing with a forwardly-extending portion and peripheral outer walls defining a recess, and a rearwardly-extending socket base to be screwed into an incandescent light bulb socket.

The accused products are the Costless Pull Chain LED Retrofit Remodel LED light fixtures.

 

Mag-LED, Inc. et al. v. Apogee Lighting Group, Inc. et al.

Filed March 8, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, this lawsuit (MAG-LED, Inc. et al v. Apogee Lighting Group, Inc. et al) involves LED flexible tape light products.

Mag-LED alleges that Apogee infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 9,671,075 and 9,746,144, each entitled “Light strip and method for making a light strip.”  The patents are directed to a light strip having a flexible enclosure extruded around a pair of conductors.  The enclosure contains a lighting assembly with one or more flexible substrates populated with a plurality of light circuits

The accused products are the Solara Flex System and other A/C powered LED flexible tape light products.

 

NEXT Lighting Corp. v. LSI Industries Inc.

NEXT sued LSI for alleged infringement of two patents relating to high brightness LED lighting units.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,491,165 (‘165 Patent) and 8,684,566 (‘566 Patent).

The ‘165 Patent is entitled “Lighting unit having lighting strips with light emitting elements and a remote luminescent material” and the ‘566 Patent is entitled “Lighting unit with indirect light source.”

Both patents are directed to a lighting unit having a support structure, and one or more light emitting elements supported by a circuit board contacting the support structure.  A remote luminescent material may be provided on one or more optical elements.  Light emitting elements configured to excite the luminescent material such as highly efficient light emitting diodes may be directed towards the luminescent material.

The complaint lists as an exemplary accused product LSI’s LED Side Light Recessed Troffer.

 

Nichia Corporation v. Vizio, Inc.

Nichia’s complaint was filed March 5, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 9,490,411 and 9,537,071.

The patents are directed to an LED manufacturing method in which a resin part and a lead are formed in a substantially same plane in an outer side surface, including sandwiching a lead frame provided with a notch part, transfer-molding a thermosetting resin containing a light reflecting material in a mold to form a resin-molded body in the lead frame, and cutting the resin-molded body and the lead frame along the notch part.

The light emitting device has a resin package which provides an optical reflectivity equal to or more than 70% at a wavelength between 350 nm and 800 nm after thermal curing, and in which a resin part and a lead are formed in a substantially same plane in an outer side surface.

Nichia alleges that Vizio’s televisions incorporate LED devices that infringe the patents.

 

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Service Lighting and Elec. Supplies, Inc.

On March 2, 2018, Seoul sued Service Lighting in federal court in Dallas, Texas, alleging infringement of ten LED and LED lighting patents.

The asserted patents are:

U.S. Patent No. 9,627,435, entitled “Light emitting device”

U.S. Patent No. 9,093,627, entitled “Light emitting diode and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 9,577,157, entitled “Light emitting diode chip having distributed Bragg reflector and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 7,700,960, entitled “Light emitting diode with ITO layer and method for fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,168,988, entitled “Light emitting element with a plurality of cells bonded, method of manufacturing the same, and light emitting device using the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,860,331, entitled “Light emitting device for AC power operation”

U.S. Patent No. 8,829,552, entitled “Light emitting device”

U.S. Patent No. 8,716,946, entitled “Light emitting device for AC power operation”

U.S. Patent No. 7,951,626, entitled “Light emitting device and method of manufacturing the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,664,638, entitled “Light-emitting diode having an interlayer with high voltage density and method for manufacturing the same

The complaint lists the accused products as the Archipelago A19F6027-2 bulb.

 

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Philcor R.V. & Electronic Leasing, Inc.

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Archipelago Lighting, Inc.

The Philcor complaint was filed March 2, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, and the Archipelago complaint was filed on the same date in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  Both actions assert the following patents:

U.S. Patent No. 7,804,098, entitled “Light Emitting Element With a Plurality of Cells Bonded, Method of Manufacturing the Same, and Light Emitting Device Using the Same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,188,489, entitled “Light Emitting Diode for AC Operation”

U.S. Patent No. 7,646,031, entitled “Light Emitting Device having Light Emitting Elements”

U.S. Patent No. 8,901,575, entitled “AC Light Emitting Diode and Method For Fabricating the Same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,299,476, entitled “Light Emitting Diode Having Light Emitting Cell with Different Size and Light Emitting Device Thereof”

U.S. Patent No. 7,768,020, entitled “AC Light Emitting Diode”

U.S. Patent No. 8,084,774, entitled “Light Emitting Device Having Light Emitting Elements”

U.S. Patent No. 8,680,533, entitled “Light-Emitting Device Having Light-Emitting Elements with a Shared Electrode”

The accused products are the Archipelago LG16512C20027K3 and LA17C24024K1 bulbs.

 

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Aeon Labs, LLC

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Super Bright LEDs, Inc.

In these lawsuits, Technical LED accuses the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. RE41,685, entitled “Light source with non-white and phosphor-based white LED devices and LCD assembly” (‘685 Patent).

The’ 685 Patent is directed to a light source incorporating phosphor-based white and non-white LEDs, which may be raised off the floor of the optical cavity to permit light to be emitted from the base of the LED.  A reflective protrusion may be placed beneath the raised LED to aid in redirecting light forward, and the LEDs may be skewed in relation to adjacent LEDs to reduce interference.

The Aeon Labs complaint was filed March 26, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Super Bright LEDs complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 11, 2018.

The accused products are Aeon’s z-wave light bulbs and Super Bright’s MiLight bulbs.

• Previous Entry: Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update
• Next Entry: Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update