By John PresperOn January 28, 2013, Andrzej Bobel and Neptun Light, Inc. (“Neptun”) (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain compact fluorescent reflector lamps (“reflector CFLs”) and products and components containing same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 (“the ‘540 patent”):
- Maxlite, Inc. of West Caldwell, New Jersey
- Technical Consumer Products, Inc. of Aurora, Ohio
- Satco Products, Inc. of Brentwood, New York
- Litetronics International, Inc. of Alsip, Illinois
According to the complaint, Mr. Bobel is the owner of the ‘540 patent, directed to reflector lamps with a florescent light source that are “electrically, mechanically, and optically compatible with incandescent or tungsten-halogen incandescent lamps.” Neptun, a company founded by Mr. Bobel in 2002 that manufactures reflector CFLs, is the sole licensee to the ‘540 patent.
The complaint describes the activities of the Proposed Respondents alleged to directly infringe the asserted patents and identifies representative products for each Respondent by model number. The complaint asserts that the packaging for the representative products for each of the Proposed Respondents illustrates that the products were made in China and imported into the United States for sale.
The complaint states that there is no related litigation.
Complainants assert that they meet both the economic and technical prongs of the domestic industry requirement, arguing that they have made “significant investment in plant and equipment,” “significant employment of labor and capital,” and “substantial investment in the exploitation of the ‘540 patent.” The complaint alleges that Neptun was established to market and sell energy efficient electric lamps including the reflector CFLs encompassed by the ‘540 patent. The complaint includes a claim chart matching the elements of the independent claims of the ‘540 patent to a representative product sold by Neptun, demonstrating that Complainants practice the invention.
With respect to potential remedy, the complaint requests that the Commission issue a permanent exclusion order and cease and desist orders directed to the Proposed Respondents and their allegedly infringing devices.