Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update
LED technology continues to dominate green patent litigation, with at least 18 new lawsuits filed in November and December of 2016. Solar mounting systems and waste management each saw one new lawsuit during this period.
LEDs
OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.
Filed November 3, 2016 in federal court in Phoenix, Arizona, OptoLum’s complaint asserts three patents against Cree.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,573,536, 6,831,303 and 7,242,028, each entitled “Light emitting diode light source.” They relate to early (their priority date is May 2002) LED technology designed to provide sufficient light output to be used as a general lighting source rather than a signaling source.
The patents are directed to LEDs that emit white light. The diodes are mounted on an elongate member which is thermally conductive and is utilized to cool the diodes.
The accused products are Cree LED bulbs from 2013 and 2014 that are replacements for 60W and 100W incandescents.
Analog Integrations Corporation v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation
In this lawsuit, Analog Integrations sued MagnaChip for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,049, entitled “LED driving circuit having a large operational range in voltage” (‘049 Patent).
The ‘049 Patent is directed to an LED driving circuit including a current selecting circuit that controls the current transmission path in a plurality of LEDs according to respective threshold voltages of corresponding LEDs and a plurality of current limits.
Filed November 6, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the complaint accuses MagnaChip’s driving circuit Product Model No. MAP9000 of infringing the ‘049 Patent.
The Regents of the University of California v. Zlight Technology LLC
The University of California has sued Zlight Technology in a case involving transparent LED technology to enable LED filament-style light bulbs.
UC alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,781,789, entitled “Transparent mirrorless light emitting diode” (‘789 Patent).
The ‘789 Patent is directed to an (Al, Ga, In)N LED in which multi-directional light can be extracted from one or more surfaces of the LED before entering a shaped optical element and subsequently being extracted to air. The optical element is molded into a sphere or inverted cone shape, wherein most of the light entering the inverted cone shape lies within a critical angle and is extracted.
The invention also minimizes internal reflections within the LED by eliminating mirrors and/or mirrored surfaces, in order to minimize re-absorption of the LED’s light by the emitting layer (or the active layer) of the LED.
Filed November 7, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the complaint lists a host of Zlight LED filament products alleged to infringe the ‘789 Patent.
Cree, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.
Cree, Inc. v. Maxbrite LED Lighting Technology, LLC
Cree has asserted five utility patents and one design patent against E. Mishan & Sons in a lawsuit filed November 11, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The patents-in-suit are:
U.S. Patent No. 7,808,013, entitled “Integrated heat spreaders for light emitting devices (LEDs)
U.S. Patent No. 7,858,998, entitled “Semiconductor light emitting devices including flexible silicone film having a lens therein
U.S. Patent No. 8,167,463, entitled “Power surface mount light emitting die package”
U.S. Patent No. 8,622,582, entitled “Power surface mount light emitting die package”
U.S. Patent No. 9,070,850, entitled “Light emitting diode package and method for fabricating same”
U.S. Patent No. D615,504, entitled “Emitter package”
The accused products include flashlights such as the TACLIGHT tactical flashlight product.
The lawsuit against Maxbrite was filed November 18, 2016 in federal court in Oakland, California for both patent and trademark infringement. For some reason, I haven’t been able to track down the complaint, but it appears to be, at least in part, a counterfeiting case (see LED Inside article here).
Tseng v. BBC International LLC et al.
On December 25, 2016, Shen Ko Tseng, an individual, filed this complaint in federal court in San Francisco against BBC International, Concept Technology, and Terry Electronics alleging infringement of an LED circuit patent.
The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,452,106, and 7,405,674, each entitled “Circuit device for controlling a plurality of light-emitting devices in a sequence” and directed to a circuit device for controlling light-emitting devices disposed in a sequence including a motion activated switch. The controller is capable of driving the light-emitting diodes lighting up on the basis of a first predefined sequence and a consequent second predefined sequence when triggered by a motion-actuated switch.
The accused products are Batman, Thomas, Peanuts, and Spiderman branded LED illuminated shoes.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Feit Electrical Company, Inc.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Hyperikon, Inc.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Sunco Lighting, Inc.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Letianlighting, Inc.
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Halco Lighting Technologies, LLC
Blackbird Tech LLC v. CleanLife Energy LLC
Blackbird Tech LLC v. Evergreen LED, LLC
Blackbird Tech initiated several new lawsuits in the last two months of the year. The first, against Letianlighting, was filed November 9, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747, entitled “Low-voltage apparatus for satisfying after-hours light requirements, emergency light requirements, and low light requirements” (‘747 Patent).
The ‘747 Patent is directed to an energy efficient lighting apparatus wherein the circuit board is positioned adjacent the ballast cover so that the plurality of light-emitting diodes protrude through the plurality of ballast cover holes in the ballast cover, the lighting apparatus is coupled to a wall switch, and the illumination of the light-emitting diodes is controllable based upon the position of the wall switch.
The other seven complaints were filed December 8 and December 28, 2016, also in Delaware. The patent in those suits is U.S. Patent No. 7,114,834 (‘834 Patent). Entitled “LED lighting apparatus,” the ‘834 Patent is directed to a light comprising a housing, a plurality of LED lights coupled in an array inside of the housing, and a reflective protrusion for reflecting light from the LED lights out of the housing.
The LED array receives a consistent flow of DC current that will not result in the LED lights burning out. To prevent the LED array from burning out there is also a current regulator for controlling a current flowing through this LED array.
The accused product in the Feit complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Feit Electrical Company, Inc.) is the 60 Watt Equivalent Dimmable G25 Bulb; the Home Depot complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.) lists the Ecosmart 60W LED Replacement bulbs and the Hampton Bay LED Low Voltage 20W Equivalent Spotlight; the accused product in the Hyperikon complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Hyperikon, Inc.) is the Daylight Glow Par 16 bulb, and the Sunco complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Sunco Lighting, Inc.) lists the 6 Watt Pure Efficiency Spot Light.
The accused products listed in the Evergreen complaint (Blackbird Tech v. Evergreen) are the Yigeda Solid State Lighting Chandelier bulbs. The Cleanlife Energy complaint (Blackbird Tech LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.) lists the CleanLife 7W LED MR16 Spot Light, and the Halco complaint (Blackbird Tech v. Halco Lighting Technologies) lists the Halco Solid State Lighting Chandelier bulbs.
Lighting Science Group Corporation v. Halco Lighting Technologies
Halco was also sued by LSG for allegedly infringing three patents whose commercial embodiment is LSG’s GLIMPSE lighting family of products.
The lawsuit asserts the following three patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 (‘968 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 (‘844 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518 (‘518 Patent).
Entitled “Low profile light,” 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. The ‘518 Patent and the’ 844 Patent are entitled “Low profile light and accessory kit for the same” and relate to LSG’s disc light LED devices.
The complaint was filed in federal court in Orlando, Florida on December 21, 2016.
Nichia Corporation v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Nichia Corporation v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
Nichia Corporation v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited et al.
Nichia Corporation v. Vizio, Inc.
Nichia filed four lawsuits in federal court in Marshall, Texas on December 27, 2016, each asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,490,411 (‘411 Patent) (Nichia Corporation v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.; Nichia Corporation v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.; Nichia Corporation v. TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Limited et al.; Nichia Corporation v. Vizio, Inc.).
The ‘411 Patent is entitled “Light emitting device, resin package, resin-molded body, and methods for manufacturing light emitting device, resin package and resin-molded body” and 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 accused Feit products include the Feit Electric 800 Lumen 3000K Dimmable LED, the LED Shop Light, the Dimmable Warm White LED Bulb, and the 40 W Equivalent Soft White Smart LED Bulb.
The accused Lowe’s products include the Utilitech 75 W Equivalent Par38 Warm White LED Flood Light Bulb, the 65 W Equivalent Dimmable Daylight LED Flood Light Bulb, and the 65 W Eqivalent Dimmable Soft White LED Flood Light Bulb.
The accused TCL and Vizio products are certain LED televisions.
Solar Mounting Systems
Rillito River Solar, LLC v. IronRidge Inc.
Rillito River Solar (dba EcoFastenSolar) sued IronRidge December 1, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
The complaint alleges that IronRidge’s FlashFoot2 roof mounting system infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,526,701 (‘701 Patent).
Entitled “Roof mount,” the ‘701 Patent is directed to a roof mount including a base member, an attachment mount, and a spacer extending the base member to a roof surface. The base member has a protrusion, and the attachment mount defines a hollowed region for receiving the protrusion to form a compression fitting. A substantially leak proof assembly is formed when the attachment mount is placed against the base member with a sealing material therebetween.
Waste Management
Pannell Manufacturing Corp. v. Smoker et al.
Pannell sued two individuals, Phillips Mushroom Farms, and E&H Conveyors for alleged infringement of three patents relating to mushroom composting.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,069,608, 8,205,379 and 8,561,344. They are entitled “Mushroom compost compacting system and method” and are directed to systems and methods for compacting mushroom compost using a roller assembly mounted to a compost receptacle to form a nip, along with a web or conveyor to convey mushroom compost to and through the nip. Mushroom compost is compacted to a particular height that can be adjusted by the user by adjusting the space between the roller and compost receptacle.
The complaint was filed December 2, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This article was originally published on Eric's Green Patent Blog.