Loading...

Follow Green Patents on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

Several new green patent complaints were filed in May and June in the areas of electric vehicles, eco-friendly pet products, LEDs, and lighting control technology.

Electric Vehicles

Nikola Corporation v. Tesla, Inc.

Nikola filed this lawsuit accusing Tesla of infringing three design patents for an electric heavy duty truck design.

The patents-in-suit are and a representative figure from the patents is shown below:

U.S. Patent No. D811,944, entitled “Fuselage”

U.S. Patent No. D811,968, entitled “Wrap windshield”

U.S. Patent No. D816,004, entitled “Side door”

The complaint alleges that Tesla’s Semi truck trailer design infringes the patents.

Green Pet Products

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Argento SC By Sicura Inc.

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Dogo Pet Fashions

These lawsuits involve pet pad technology that cools your pets without water or electricity.  The Argento complaint was filed May 11, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the Dogo complaint was filed May 27, 2018 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,720,218 and 9,226,474, both entitled “Pressure activated recharging cooling platform” and directed to a cooling platform comprising a temperature regulation layer, a support layer, and a channeled covering layer.

The temperature regulation layer is adapted to hold a composition and has a plurality of angled segments, wherein angled segments within a sealed perimeter of the temperature regulation layer are formed by a top side and a bottom side at a predefined distance, and channels, wherein the channels substantially form sides by contacting the top side with the bottom side at a distance lesser than the predefined distance.

The complaints allege that Argento’s Avalanche Pet Cooling Mat and Dogo’s SICool Mat Gel infringe the two patents.

LEDs

Epistar Corporation v. V-TAC USA Corp.

Epistar sued V-TAC in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2018.

The complaint asserts infringement of seven patents:

U.S. Patent No. 6,346,771, titled “High Power LED Lamp”

U.S. Patent No. 7,489,068, titled “Light Emitting Device”

U.S. Patent No. 7,560,738, titled “Light-Emitting Diode Array Having An Adhesive Layer”

U.S. Patent No. 8,240,881, titled “Light-Emitting Device Package”

U.S. Patent No. 9,065,022, titled, “Light Emitting Apparatus”

U.S. Patent No. 9,488,321, titled “Illumination Device With Inclined Light Emitting Element Disposed On A Transparent Substrate” and

U.S. Patent No. 9,664,340, titled “Light Emitting Device”

The accused products are V-TAC’s LED filament bulbs.

Seoul Semiconductor Co. et al. v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc.

This lawsuit was filed May 8, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of eight LED patents.

The asserted patents are:

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. 7,906,789, entitled “Warm white light emitting apparatus and back light module comprising the same”

U.S. Patent No. 8,120,054, entitled “Light emitting diode package having heat dissipating slugs”

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

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. 7,982,207, entitled “Light emitting diode”

U.S. Patent No. 9,716,210, entitled “Light emitting diode and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 6,942,731, entitled “Method for improving the efficiency of epitaxially produced quantum dot semiconductor components”

The complaint alleges that Bed Bath & Beyond’s sales of several FEIT Electric LED products such as, inter alia, FEIT Electric’s BPC7/LED/CAN accent LED night light and OM60/580/LED/CAN 800 lumen 5000K Dimmable LED bulb infringe one or more of the asserted patents.

Smart Light Source Company, LLC v. Railhead Corporation et al.

This lawsuit involves LED headlights for trains.  Smart Light Source seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,499,180 (‘180 Patent).

The ‘180 Patent is entitled “Locomotive headlamp” and directed to a locomotive headlamp comprising one or more LED bulbs, wherein the headlamp reduces the parasitic load of the locomotive causes the heat generated by the LED bulbs to prevent snow and ice impaction.

The complaint was filed May 31, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Home Ever, Inc.

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Revogi Innovation Co.

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Revogi, LLC

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Brand W, LLC

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 Home Ever complaint was filed June 6, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the Revogi Innovation complaint was filed June 7, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Revogi  complaint was filed June 27, 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Brand W complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on June 18, 2018.

The accused products are Home Ever’s Lighting Ever light bulbs and ceiling lights, Revogi light bulbs and Delite 2 smart LED lights, Brand W’s MIPOW BTL-400-BK Playbulb and MIPOW E26 Bluetooth Smart LED.

NEXT Lighting Corp. v. General Electric Company

NEXT sued GE for alleged infringement of a relating to high brightness LED lighting units.

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,491,165 (‘165 Patent), entitled “Lighting unit having lighting strips with light emitting elements and a remote luminescent material.”

The ‘165 Patent is 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.

Filed June 11, 2018 in federal court in Dallas, the complaint lists as an exemplary accused product GE’s Lumination LED Luminaire – LIS Series.

Lighting Control Systems

SIPCO, LLC v. RAB Lighting Inc.

Atlanta-based patent licensing and assertion company Sipco LLC sued RAB in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 8, 2018.

The complaint lists several patents relating to lighting monitoring and control technology: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,103,511, 7,468,6616,914,893, 7,263,073, 6,836,737,  and 8,924,587.

The accused products are RAB’s Lightcloud line of wireless lighting control systems.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Several new green patent complaints were filed in April and May 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. 8,530,2509,490,411 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.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

The World Intellectual Property Organization recently released its 2017 IP report entitled “Intangible Capital in Global Value Chains.”

The report tackles several questions about the types, roles, and importance of intangible assets in global value chains.  One key question is what role intellectual property plays in generating a return on these assets.

Although much of the report deals with traditional consumer products such as coffee and smartphones, of interest to readers of this blog is the chapter on innovation in the solar photovoltaic (PV) industry and, particularly, the section on PV related patent filings.

The report notes that the number of patent filing increased from less than 2,500 in the early 2000s to over 16,000 in 2011, a reflection of the growing market demand for PV installations.  Most of those technologies originated in Japan and US until 2008, but by 2010 China had surged ahead to become the top PV patent filing economy.

The report addresses the question of China’s technological catch-up, positing that China enjoyed technology transfer by purchasing production equipment from international suppliers and cultivating skilled executives educated abroad to work for Chinese companies and teach at Chinese universities.

Another finding is that China, in particular, patents minor inventions or incremental improvements while maintaining critical innovations focusing on process as trade secrets.  From this the report concludes that process innovations “are instrumental for introducing new PV products into the market and maintaining existing ones.”

According to the report, a more detailed look at the patent filings reveals that about two thirds of patenting activity relates to cell and module technologies; silicon, ingots and wafers constituted under 10% of patent filings, and the remainder is equipment.

The report finds that the growth in PV patenting activity has reversed recently; between 2011 and 2015, the number of PV-related patent filings fell by 44 percent.  This fall has occurred in all major PV innovating countries except China.

The decrease is a result of two forces, the report concludes.  The first is a decline in the number of applicants (though the number of applications per applicant has increased), particularly in the US, Germany, Japan and Korea.  This is because many players have exited the market, and market entry is difficult.

The remaining players, however, seem to be filing more patent applications and increasing their R&D intensity.  This focus on the next generation of technologies “suggests that IP-protected knowledge assets may become more valuable in this time of sectoral recomposition.”

The second reason for the decrease is a reduction of the internationalization of PV patents.  In other words, applicants are filing in fewer countries outside their home country, opting out of international patent protection.  The report finds that in the mid-2000s, each PV invention was filed on average in three different patent offices, but by 2015, the average was only 1.5.

The report notes that PV patent applicants typically file in only a few countries/jurisdictions (China, US, Japan, Korea and Europe) and rarely file in, e.g., Australia, Russia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, or anywhere else.

While most innovation studies focus exclusively on patent data, the report has an interesting section on “reputational assets” such as trademarks and brand-related activities.

The report finds that trademark protection for PV products and services has grown in the last decade.  Data from the US and international trademark application databases show that PV-related trademark filings were four to six times higher in 2016 than they were in 2005.

In the conclusion to the PV IP chapter, the report states that because PV panels and systems are now “mostly commodities rather than differentiated goods . . . the dynamics of the industry have been profoundly driven by strategies to reduce production costs, rather than by product innovation.”  In addition, the solar PV market is “saturated with an incumbent technology whose depressed prices provide tight profit margins for companies.”  Accordingly:

Firms can dedicate their R&D efforts either to high-level process innovations that will reduce production costs in the dominant technology, or to new solar PV product innovations whose production prices are below those for the incumbent technology.

With respect to China, the report calls the PV industry “a case study of a compelete form of technology transfer to an emerging economy.”

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Previous posts (e.g., here and here) have discussed trademarks that are “merely descriptive” of the goods or services.  Although the registration process can be an uphill battle, some descriptive marks can be protected.

Generic marks, which refer to the class or category of goods or services, are never protectable.

In November 2014, LG Electronics filed a federal trademark application for the mark QLED.  U.S. Trademark Application No. 86/472,855 listed a variety of goods in Class 9, including mobile phones, software, wearable computers, computer monitors, DVD players, touch panels, LED panels, and LED displays for televisions.

During examination of the application, the Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that QLED is generic as an acronym for the generic term “quantum dot light emitting diode.”  LG appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board), which affirmed the genericness refusal in a non-precedential opinion.

The test for determining whether a term is generic is its primary significance to the relevant public.

The Board reviewed evidence gathered by the Examining Attorney consisting of several internet excerpts including explanatory text from QLED-Info.com, press releases from various companies, content from product and trade news sites, and articles from science and technology journals.

LG objected that the evidence was from industry publications and press releases and related to as yet unreleased products.  Although the evidence may be “forward-looking,” the Board said, it is nevertheless probative of consumers’ understanding of the term QLED, especially with respect to TVs, smartphones, and other goods in the application:

Obviously, some members of the relevant consuming public would research the types of TVs, smartphones, etc. that currently are available, and the expected next generation of these items, and would encounter materials like those cited above, some of which are consumer-focused….Sony is selling QLED smartphones, and companies such as Samsung, LG Display and QD Visions have been developing products with QLED displays for at least the last six or seven years.

LG also argued that there is no consensus as to the meaning or understanding of QLED and the term “is not a designation for a key aspect for a designation of the goods.”  The Board disagreed:

The bulk of the evidence discussed above uses the terms “quantum dot light emitting diodes” and QLED” interchangeably to refer to a particular type of display technology, and as an alternative to LCD and OLED display technology, for TVs, computer screens, monitors, smartphones, and the other disputed goods, all of which have displays.  The evidence clearly demonstrates that the type of display technology is a key aspect of the disputed goods.

So QLED is generic for several goods relating to LED panels, displays, and related products.  But there was some good news for LG:  it was able to register the QLED trademark for a number of other goods in the application  (see the last page of the decision for the list of protected goods).

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Several new green patent complaints were filed in July and August in the areas of advanced batteries, electrolyzers for sewage treatment, LED lighting, eco-friendly pet products, solar powered trash compactors, and wind turbines.

Advanced Batteries

Somaltus LLC v. Universal Power Group

Somaltus LLC v. Tenergy Corporation

Somaltus LLC v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.

On July 26, 2017 Somaltus, a non-practicing entity, filed three patent infringement lawsuits against Universal Power Group (Somaltus v. Universal Power Group), Tenergy (Somaltus LLC v. Tenergy Corporation), and Maxim Integrated Products (Somaltus LLC v. Maxim Integrated Products Inc.).  The complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Each lawsuit asserts U.S. Patent No. 7,657,386, entitled “Integrated battery service system (‘386 Patent).

The ‘386 Patent is  directed to an integrated battery service system that performs a plurality of services related to a battery, such as battery testing, battery charging, and the like. In addition, the integrated service system provides services to devices/components that are coupled to the battery, such as starters, alternators, etc.

The accused products are Universal Power Group’s 24 v 8 amp Premium Quality Heavy Duty XLR 3-pin off-board Sealed AGM, GEL Universal 24BC8000T-1 battery charger, Tenergy’s T-9688 Universal 4 By NiMh/NiCd Smart Chargers, and Maxim’s Max77301 JEITA-Compliant Li+ Charger with Smart Power Selector.

Marine Sewage Treatment

DeNora Water Technologies Texas, LLC v. H2O, Inc.

This lawsuit involves bookcell electrolyzer technology used for oxidizing sewage.

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,379,525, entitled “Enhanced electrolyzer” and directed to an electrolyzer including a housing having an inlet and an outlet at a common end.  Within the housing are disposed electrode elements, a passageway that connects the inlet to the outlet, and a divider is disposed in the passageway between the inlet and outlet. The divider causes fluid entering the inlet to flow through one section of the passageway and then through another section of the passageway before exiting through the outlet.

The complaint was filed August 17, 2017 in federal court in Houston, Texas, and lists Defendant’s multi-pass bookcell electrolyzers as the accused products.

LEDs

Bitro Group Inc. v. Advanced Lighting Concepts, Inc.

Bitro sued Advanced Lighting Concepts (ALC) August 24, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,113,558 (‘558 Patent).

The ‘558 Patent is entitled “LED mount bar capable of freely forming curved surfaces thereon” and directed to an LED tape light strip with a structure that allows it to be bent in the direction of its width so it can be used for lighting that must conform to unique shapes.

The accused product listed in Bitro’s complaint is Defendant’s CurrentControl Bendable ZigZag LED Strip Light.

Blackbird Tech LLC v. Ontel Products Corporation

Filed August 23, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Blackbird’s complaint alleges that Ontel Products infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,883,927 (‘927 Patent).

Entitled “Frame assembly and light for an electrical wall conduit,” the ‘927 Patent is directed to a frame assembly for covering a wall conduit having a connection to electrical power.  The frame assembly comprises a light powered by an electrical circuit connected to the connection and a frame for housing the light.  The frame has an opening allowing access to the component through the frame, a side and an aperture in the side allowing the light to illuminate a space outside the frame assembly through the aperture.

The accused products are Ontel’s Night Angel electrical wall outlet covers.

Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Lite-On, Inc. et al.

Document Security Systems (DSS) filed this lawsuit against Lite-On August 15, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting three LED patents.

The complaint contains a long list of accused products, e.g., many of Lite-On’s PLCC Series LED products, including both single color and multi-color lights.

The asserted patents are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,949,771, entitled “Light source”

U.S. Patent No. 7,524,087, entitled “Optical Device”

U.S. Patent No. 7,256,486, entitled “Packing device for semiconductor die, semiconductor device incorporating same and method of making same”

Technical LED Intellectual Property, LLC v. Osram Sylvania Inc.

Technical LED IP sued Osram on August 9, 2017 for alleged infringement of two patents relating to phosphor-based LED lights.  The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. RE41,685 (‘685 Patent) and 6,373,188 (‘188 Patent).

The ‘685 Patent is entitled “Light source with non-white and phosphor-based white LED devices, and LCD assembly” and 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.

Entitled “Efficient solid-state light emitting device with excited phosphors for producing a visible light output,” the ‘188 Patent is directed to a solid-state light emitting device in which phosphors excited by radiation produce visible light.  The efficiency of the device is increased by providing a reflector adjacent to the phosphor layer for reflecting at least some of the radiation that passes through the phosphor back into the phosphor. The reflector may also reflect at least some of the visible light that is emitted by the phosphor toward a designated light output.

The accused products include, among others, Osram’s LEP-2100-840-HD-C,  LEP-2100-930-HD-C, LEP-800-840-HD-C, LEP800-930-HD-C, LED12A19/DIM/F/927, LCW CP7P-KPKR-5R8T, and LE CW E3B-NYPZ-QRRU models.

Green Pet Products

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Unique Petz, Inc.

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. C&A Marketing, Inc.

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. European Home Design, LLC

The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corporation

These lawsuits involve pet pad technology that cools your pets without water or electricity.  These four complaints were filed August 16 and 17, 2017 in federal court in New Jersey and New York (THE GREEN PET SHOP ENTERPRISES, LLC v. C&A MARKETING, INC.; The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. European Home Design, LLCTHE GREEN PET SHOP ENTERPRISES, LLC v. TELEBRANDS CORPORATIONThe Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC v. Unique Petz, Inc.).

The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,720,218 and 9,226,474, both entitled “Pressure activated recharging cooling platform” and directed to a cooling platform comprising a temperature regulation layer, a support layer, and a channeled covering layer.  The temperature regulation layer is adapted to hold a composition and has a plurality of angled segments, wherein angled segments within a sealed perimeter of the temperature regulation layer are formed by a top side and a bottom side at a predefined distance, and channels, wherein the channels substantially form sides by contacting the top side with the bottom side at a distance lesser than the predefined distance.

The complaints allege that the defendants’ respective cooling mat products infringe the two patents.

Solar Powered Trash Compactors

BigBelly Solar, Inc. v. Ecube Labs Co.

In this lawsuit filed July 28, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, BigBelly asserts two patents relating to solar powered compaction technology.

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,680 and 7,481,159 are related patents, each entitled “Solar powered compaction apparatus” and directed to a trash compactor powered by a photovoltaic cell array.  The compaction feature allows the unit to be emptied less often than a typical trash container.  A removable bin allows easy removal of the compacted trash and can include multiple chambers for different trash types.

BigBelly’s complaint alleges that Ecube’s Clean CUBE product infringes the patents.

Wind Power

General Electric Co. v. Vestas Wind Systems A/S et al.

In this important wind industry lawsuit involving Zero Voltage Ride Through (ZVRT) technology, GE alleges that its Danish competitor, Vestas, infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,629,705 (‘705 Patent).

The ‘705 Patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for operating electrical machines” and directed to methods of facilitating zero voltage ride through so the turbine can remain online during voltage dips down to zero volts.

The complaint was filed July 31, 2017 in U.S. District Court for the District of California and lists the accused products as Vestas’ V90-3.0, V100-2.0, V112-3.0 and V117-3.3 wind turbines.

GE had a big win against Mitsubishi with this patent back in 2012.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview