LED lighting remains the hottest area of green patent litigation, with several complaints filed in the last several weeks.  Green patent complaints were recently filed in the areas of advanced batteries and solar powered lighting as well.

Advanced Batteries

Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.

Celgard is a North Carolina company that manufactures specialty membranes and separators for lithium ion batteries.  On April 26, 2013, Celgard filed a patent infringement complaint against SK Innovation (SK) in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The complaint alleges that SK is directly infringing and inducing infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586 (’586 Patent) by selling lithium ion battery separators to its customers knowing that the separators will be incorporated into finished lithium ion batteries.

The ’586 Patent is entitled “Separator for a high energy rechargeable lithium battery” and directed to a separator including a ceramic composite layer and a polyolefinic microporous layer.  The ceramic layer has a matrix material and is adapted to block dendrite growth and prevent electronic shorting.

Celgard asserted the ’586 Patent against Sumitomo in February.

Solar Powered Lighting

Richmond v. Lumisol Electrical Ltd. et al.

On March 27, 2013, Simon Nicholas Richmond filed suit against a number of defendants including Lumisol Electrical, Ningbo Hangshun Electrical, and Costco for alleged infringement of three U.S. patents relating to a solar power lighting assembly and one patent relating to a wind indicator illuminated by solar power. 

The asserted lighting assembly patents are part of the same family and include U.S. Patent Nos. 7,196,477, 7,429,827 and 8,362,700, each entitled “Solar powered light assembly to produce light of varying colors.”  The fourth patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,089,370, entitled “Illuminated wind indicator.”

The accused products include the Color-Changing Sun and Moon Solar Stake Path Light sold under the brand name Celestial Series Sun and Moon Light.

LEDs

Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Cree, Inc.

Florida LED lighting company Lighting Science Group (LSG) recently sued North Carolina-based Cree for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968, entitled “Low profile light” (’968 Patent).

Filed April 10, 2013 in federal court in Orlando, the LSG complaint alleges that Cree infringes at least claims 1-6, 9, 14, 17-20 and 22 of the ’968 Patent by its manufacture and sale of the T67 LED Downlight product.

The ’968 Patent is directed to a luminaire including a heat spreader and a heat sink disposed outboard of the heat spreader, an outer optic securely retained relative to the heat spreader and/or the heat sink, and an LED light source.

Nicholas Holiday, Inc. v. 1 Energy Solutions, Inc.

On April 1, 2013, Nicholas Holiday brought a declaratory judgment action against 1 Energy Solutions (1 Energy) in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. 

The patent at issue is 1 Energy’s U.S. Patent No. 7,045,965 (’965 Patent), granted in 2006, and issued as a reissue patent on January 1, 2013.  The ’965 Patent is entitled “LED light module and series connected light modules” and relates to a more reliable light module having LEDs connected in parallel for use in light strings such as Christmas lights.

According to the complaint, Nicolas Holiday has intervening rights because it began making and selling various light string sets in 2008, including the Energy Smart LED C-5 and the Energy Smart 50 LED Colorite Miniature Lights light string products. 

Nicholas Holiday is requesting a declaratory judgment that the reissue patent is invalid, its products do not infringe the reissue patent, and that it may continue to make, use and sell its LED light string products.

Relume Corporation Trust v. Swarco America, Inc. et al.

Relume filed a patent infringement complaint against Swarco and Philips Lumileds on March 27, 2013 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  The complaint asserts RE 42,161, entitled “Power supply for light emitting diode array” (’161 Reissue), which is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,661,645.

The ’161 Reissue is directed to a power supply apparatus and system for providing power to LEDs, particularly LED array traffic signals.  The accused products are are Swarco’s FUTURLED ITE traffic signal modules.

Trustees of Boston University v. Amazon.com.

On May 2, 2013, Boston University (BU) sued Amazon in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (’738 Patent). 

The ’738 Patent is entitled “Highly insulated monocrystalline gallium nitride thin films” and directed to gallium nitride semiconductor devices and methods of preparing highly insulating GaN single crystal films in a molecular beam epitaxial growth chamber.

BU allegs that certain Kindle Paperwhite and Fire devices contain infringing LEDs.

Jam Strait, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania, Inc.

A Mississippi company called Jam Strait recently sued Osram Sylvania in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for alleged infringement of a patent relating to LEDs used in motor vehicles.

Filed April 29, 2013, the complaint asserts that Sylvania’s 168/194/2825 LED light infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,786,625 (’625 Patent).

The ’625 Patent is entitled “LED light module for vehicles” and directed to an LED lamp module for use in vehicle tail lights.  According to the ’625 Patent, the module has integrated dual element control circuitry, voltage and current control circuitry, brightness enhancement circuitry, and LED circuitry built in to produce a bright, reliable, long life, energy efficient LED lamp that fits all vehicles.

A previous post reported on GE’s patent infringement suit against AgiLight asserting several patents relating to LED string light engine structures and assembly methods. 

In a recent decision the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted AgiLight’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims of two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,633,055 (’055 Patent) and 7,832,896 (’896 Patent).

The ’055 and ’896 Patents are entitled “Sealed light emitting diode assemblies including annular gaskets and method of making same” and “LED light engine,” respectively.

A key claim term at issue with respect to the ’055 Patent was an “annular gasket,” which the court had previously interpreted to require an opening in its center that is capable of sealing off its center area. 

GE argued that the blue element in Figure 1 below meets the “annular gasket” element because it is brought into direct sealing contact with a hollow opening (or socket) in the tooling mold to seal off the center of the opening.

The court disagreed because the AgiLight device has multiple openings and GE’s argument would encompass any concave structure, citing precedents more likely to be found at a pâtisserie than a semiconductor fab:

This interpretation goes too far.  First, even accepting GE’s argument, AgiLight’s design has multiple openings in a single blue element to house LEDs, not “an opening.”  Second, under GE’s understanding, the term “opening” would be synonymous with the inside of any concave surface.  The Court declines to give “opening” such a strained meaning.  Simply put, a croissant is not a donut.

On the ’896 Patent, the claim term at issue was a “substantially ellipsoidal inner profile” to increase the spread of the LED’s light.  The court held this feature was lacking from the accused device because it has important portions that are conical, not ellipsoidal:

The Court finds the “substantially ellipsoidal inner profile” lacking from AgiLight’s designs.  In particular, to the sides of what is arguably an ellipsoidal portion of AgiLight’s lens appears a portion that is conical, and not ellipsoidal.  The Sasian Declaration, which is unrebutted, explains that “[i]t is through the use of all three portions [spherical, cylindrical, and conical] of the inner surface of the lens that the lens used in the AgiLight products widens the pattern of light rays emitted by the LED over which the lens is placed.”  Given the importance of the conical portions of AgiLight’s lens the Court finds that the entirety of the lens cannot be considered substantially ellipsoidal.

Accordingly, the court granted AgiLight’s motion for summary judgment that it does not infringe the ’055 and ’896 Patents.

There were significant developments recently in a couple of LED patent lawsuits.  First, in GE Lighting v. AgiLight, previously discussed here, the parties submitted a joint stipulation stating that two of the LED string light engine patents asserted by GE are not infringed.

The parties stipulated that the court’s construction of the claim term “IDC Connector” - a two-part housing, with one part including four electrical terminals, the housing being able to snap together to enclose three insulated conductors – means that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,160,140 and 7,520,771 do not read on AgiLight’s products.

The parties requested entry of partial summary judgment of non-infringement.  GE, of course, did not concede the propriety of the court’s claim construction, and entered into the stipulation to facilitate a prompt appeal of the claim construction decision.

A previous post discussed UK-based Litepanels‘ infringement action in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) involving three patents relating to LED lighting systems for use in film and TV production.  The ITC complaint was filed in August 2011 against several U.S. and Chinese companies.

In September 2012 an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the ITC found a violation of at least one claim of each of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,948,823 (’823 Patent), 7,318,652 (’652 Patent) and 7,972,022 (’022 Patent).

Last month the ITC issued a Notice of Final Determination imposing a general exclusion order, a sweeping remedy that bars importation of any LED devices that infringe the ’652 and ’022 Patents, not just those imported by respondents Flolight and Cool Lights.  The ITC reversed the ALJ’s findings of infringement of the ’823 Patent. 

The ITC imposed the general exclusion order as well as a 43% bond on any infringing products imported pending Presidential review of its decision:

The Commission has further determined that the appropriate remedy is a general exclusion order prohibiting from entry LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that infringe claims 1, 57, 58, and 60 of the ’022 patent and claims 1-2, 5, 16, 18-19, 25, and 27 of the ’652 patent….Finally, the Commission has determined that a bond in the amount of 43 percent of the entered value is required to permit temporary importation during the period of Presidental review of LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof that are subject to the order.

A previous post discussed Everlight Electronics’ patent suit against Nichia in which the Taiwanese company is seeking a declaratory judgment that two LED patents owned by its Japanese rival are not infringed, invalid, and unenforceable due to alleged inequitable conduct by Nichia before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

In a recent decision, a Michigan federal court granted Nichia’s motion to dismiss the inequitable conduct claims.

The two patents at issue relate to high brightness LED technology.  They are U.S. Patent No. 5,998,925, entitled “Light emitting device having a nitride compound semiconductor and phosphor containing garnet fluorescent material” (’925 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 7,531,960, entitled “Light emitting device with blue light LED and phosphor components” (’960 Patent) (Patents-in-suit).

Everlight’s inequitable conduct allegations centered on statements in the Patents-in-suit regarding certain phosphor compositions used in the described and claimed LEDs. 

According to Everlight’s complaint, the experiments in examples 8 and 12 of the ’925 Patent constitued fraud on the PTO because they were not actually conducted and described “fictitious phosphors.”  More particularly, Everlight contended that it was not possible to make such phosphors:

Nichia never could have made such phosphors because they are chemically unstable using the type of fabrication methods Nichia described in the ’925 Patent. 

In response Nichia argued that Everlight failed to meet the pleading standard for inequitable conduct in light of recent case law on the doctrine, particularly the Federal Circuit’s Therasense decision.  That case held that both materiality and intent to deceive must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

More particularly, Nichia contended that the pleadings are deficient because they fail to identify who committed the inequitable conduct, they fail to identify why the alleged misrepresentations were material to patentability, and they do not allege sufficient facts to support an inference of specific intent to deceive the PTO.

The court agreed with all of Nichia’s arguments.  Specifically, the court found Everlight’s identification of the inventors and/or “other persons who were substantially involved” in preparing the patent application that led to the ’925 Patent to be deficient, and held that Everlight cannot simply rely on a signed inventor declaration to support its ID of individuals:

The Court is not persuaded that Everlight has identified the “who” of the material misrepresentations because they have not identified “the specific individual associated with the filing or prosecution of [Nichia's patents-in-suit] who both knew of the material information and deliberately withheld or misrepresented it.”  Everlight’s reliance on the inventors’ declaration does not provide sufficient facts for this Court to infer that a specific inventor had the requisite knowledge of the alleged falsity set forth in examples 8 and 12 of hte ’925 Patent.

While the court found Everlight sufficiently pled the materiality element of inequitable conduct, it held the specific intent element lacking because Everlight failed to allege that any individuals knew the experiments at issue had not actually been conducted:

Everlight fails to offer any facts to support the inference that any particular individual knew that the experiments set forth in examples 8 and 12 had not been conducted because the phosphors represented by the formulas are chemically unstable.  Even if Everlight is correct that examples 8 and 12 are necessary to enable the full scope of the claims in the ’925 Patent, Everlight has not alleged that any of the named inventors or employees in Nichia’s patent department knew this to be the case.  Without such allegations, the Court cannot infer that the alleged misrepresentations were made with the specific intent to deceive the PTO.

This case is just one of many between Nichia and Everlight.  The two LED rivals also have patent infringement suits pending in Japan, Germany, and Taiwan.

A number of green patent complaints have been filed in the last several weeks, with LED lighting continuing to be the most litigated area.  Complaints were also filed in smart grid and soil and groundwater remediation technologies.

LEDs

Technical Consumer Products v. Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions, Inc. et al.

Technical Consumer Products, a distributor of LED lighting products brought this declaratory judgment suit seeking judgments of non-infringement and/or invalidity of eight Philips patents.  The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,013,988, entitled “Circuit arrangement, and signaling light provided with the circuit arrangement”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,147,458, entitled “Circuit arrangement, and signaling light provided with the circuit arrangement”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,577,512, entitled “Power supplies for LEDs”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890, entitled “LED driver circuit with PWM output”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399, entitled “Methods and apparatus for providing power to lighting devices”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,352,138, entitled “Methods and apparatus for providing power to lighting devices”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,256,554, entitled “LED power control methods and apparatus”; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,737,643, entitled LED power control methods and apparatus”.

The complaint was filed October 11, 2012 in the Northern District of Ohio.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Aurora Lighting, Inc.

Filed November 2, 2012 in the District of Massachusetts, Philips’ complaint alleges infringement of seven patents relating to LED lighting. 

Philips accuses Clearwater, Florida-based Aurora Lighting of selling a host of allegedly infringing products including retrofit bulbs, downlight flat panel products, highbay products, floodlight products, canopy and wallwasher products, submersible products, and street light products.

The asserted patents are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774, entitled “Luminaire”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,561,690, entitled “Luminaire based on the light emission of light-emitting diodes”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,788,011, entitled “Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399, entitled “Methods and apparatus for providing power to lighting devices”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,161,311, entitled “Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559, entitled “LEDs driver”; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,659,673, entitled “Methods and apparatus for providing a controllably variable power to a load”.

LED Tech Development, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

LED Tech Development, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.

LED Tech Development, LLC v. Fujitsu America, Inc. et al.

A previous update reported on LED Tech Development’s (LED Tech) suits against Home Depot and Coleman. 

The company substantially expanded its patent enforcement campaign recently with three new complaints against Apple, Samsung and Fujitsu, filed in federal court in Delaware on October 11th, October 15th, and November 9th, respectively.

The Apple complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 6,095,661, entitled “Method and Apparatus for an L.E.D. Flashlight” (’661 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,393,119, entitled “Method and apparatus for constant light output pulsed L.E.D. illumination” (’119 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,488,390, entitled “Color-adjusted camera light and method” (’390 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,808,287, which is related to the ’661 Patent, entitled “Method and apparatus for a pulsed L.E.D. illumination source” (’287 Patent), and directed to a hand held portable LED device that maintains a predetermined light output level by selectively applying pulsed power from a DC voltage source to the LED units.

LED Tech alleges that certain Apple products utilizing pulse-width modulation signals to drive light-emitting diodes are infringing the asserted patents, including the iPad3 and the Macbook Pro.

The Samsung complaint also lists the ’661, ’119, ’390 and ’287 Patents, and the Fujitsu Complaint asserts the ’661, ’119 and ’287 Patents.

Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co. et al.

Trustees of Boston University v. Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al.

Boston University recently sued two LED makers, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (’738 Patent).  The complaints (BU-Everlight complaint; BU-Seoul complaint) were filed in the District of Massachusetts on October 17, 2012.

The ’738 Patent is entitled “Highly insulated monocrystalline gallium nitride thin films” and directed to gallium nitride semiconductor devices and methods of preparing highly insulating GaN single crystal films in a molecular beam epitaxial growth chamber.

The accused products include LEDs containing gallium nitride thin films.

Altman Stage Lighting Co. v. Lightronics Inc.

Filed October 18, 2012 in the Southern District of New York, Altman’s complaint accuses Lightronics of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,152,332 (’332 Patent).  Altman is a Yonkers, New York, stage lighting company.  According to Altman, a particular wash lighting fixture made by the Virginia-based lighting and control systems company infringes the ’332 Patent.

The ’332 Patent is entitled “LED cyclorama light” and directed to a cyclorama light containing an LED array.

Smart Grid

IP Co. v. Crestron Electronics, Inc.

IP Co., d/b/a Intus IQ has been an active non-practicing patentee in smart grid (see, e.g., here), and continued that trend recently with a lawsuit against New Jersey-based Crestron Electronics.

According to a complaint filed October 29, 2012 in the Eastern District of Texas, Crestron is directly infringing, contributorily infringing and inducing infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,044,062 (’062 Patent) by its sale of infiNET wireless lighting control and automation systems.

The ’062 Patent is entitled “Wireless network system and method for providing same” and directed to certain wireless network systems having a server providing a gateway between two networks.

Environmental Remediation

ThinkVillage Kerfoot, a Boulder, Colorado company, recently sued California-based water treatment company APTwater, alleging infringement of ten patents relating to soil and groundwater remediation technologies.

The complaint was filed in the Central District of California on November 6, 2012 and lists the following patents:

U.S. Patent No. 6,306,296, entitled “Groundwater and soil remediation with microporous diffusion apparatus”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,312,605, entitled “Gas-gas-water treatment for groundwater soil remediation”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,827,861, entitled “Gas-gas-water treatment for groundwater soil remediation”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,872,318, entitled “Microporous diffusion apparatus”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,537,706, entitled “Microporous diffusion apparatus”;

U.S. Patent No. RE43,350, entitled “Microporous diffusion apparatus”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,984,329, entitled “Coated microbubbles for treating an aquifer or soil formation”;

U.S. Patent No. 7,264,747, entitled “Coated microbubbles for treating an aquifer or soil formation”;

U.S. Patent No. 6,582,611, entitled “Groundwater and subsurface remediation”; and

U.S. Patent No. 7,033,492, entitled “Groundwater and subsurface remediation”.