29
Sep
By Eric Schweibenz
On September 21, 2017, Philips Lighting North America Corp. of Somerset, New Jersey and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. of the Netherlands (collectively, “Philips Lighting”) filed a complaint (see part 1 and part 2) requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain LED lighting devices, LED power supplies, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,586,890 (the ’890 patent), 7,038,399 (the ’399 patent), 7,256,554 (the ’554 patent), 7,262,559 (the ’559 patent), and 8,070,328 (the ’328 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”):

  • Feit Electric Company, Inc. of Pico Rivera, California
  • Feit Electric Company, Inc. (China) of China
  • Lowe’s Companies, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina
  • L G Sourcing, Inc. of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina
  • MSi Lighting, Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida
  • RAB Lighting Inc. of Northvale, New Jersey
  • Satco Products, Inc. of Brentwood, New York
  • Topaz Lighting Corp. of Holtsville, New York
  • Wangs Alliance Corp. d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. of Port Washington, New York
  • WAC Lighting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. of China

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to LED lighting technology. In particular, the ’890 patent relates to a driver circuit for LEDs that uses a specific type of current control (pulse width modulation control) to regulate current through the LEDs. The ’399 patent relates to circuitry that allows LEDs to receive power from an existing AC dimmer switch, such as those found in many residential dining rooms. The ’554 patent relates to circuitry that allows control of the intensity of the light generated by an LED, in some cases without feedback from the LED. The ’559 patent relates to an LED power supply that uses current and voltage feedback to adjust power to the LED and provide protection to the LED by preventing electrical damage. Lastly, the ’328 patent relates to LED downlights that use allegedly-novel combinations of reflectors, diffusers, and/or lenses to minimize glare and control the light emitted by the LEDs.

In the complaint, Philips Lighting states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. The complaint specifically refers to various LED lighting devices and components associated with the Proposed Respondents as infringing products.

Regarding domestic industry, Philips Lighting states that its own LED lighting devices—including, e.g., the Xitanium LED Driver Indoor Downlight/Track Dimmable, 4 Channel ColorBlast LED, and PureStyle IntelliHue LED—practice claims of the asserted patents. Philips Lighting further states that it has engaged in extensive research, development, and engineering in the U.S. relating to its domestic industry LED products. Philips Lighting also states that it is currently engaged in relevant product development, technical customer support and service, and technical marketing activities in the U.S. relating to its domestic industry LED products. Philips Lighting specifically refers to facilities in Texas and Massachusetts where it conducts relevant domestic industry activities.

As to related litigation, Philips Lighting refers to ten separate district court litigations in various district courts across the U.S. where at least one of the asserted patents is, or has been, at issue. Philips Lighting also states that the ’890 and ’399 patents have been the subject of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Philips Lighting additionally states that foreign counterparts of the ’890, ’399, and ’559 patents have been involved in administrative proceedings at the European Patent Office and the Japan Patent Office.

With respect to potential remedy, Philips Lighting requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents.
Share