28
Dec
By John Presper

On December 21, 2021, ALJ Clark S. Cheney issued the public version (Part I, Part II, Part III) of his November 19, 2021 final initial determination (“ID”) finding no violation of section 337 in Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (II) (Inv. No. 337-TA-1220).

By way of background, this investigation is based on an August 31, 2020 complaint by The Regents of the University of California alleging violations of section 337 by Respondents General Electric Company, Consumer Lighting (U.S.) LLC, d/b/a GE Lighting; Savant Systems, Inc. (“Savant”); Home Depot Product Authority, LLC; Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.; The Home Depot, Inc.; Feit Electric Company, Inc.; Satco Products, Inc.; IKEA Supply AG; IKEA U.S. Retail LLC; and IKEA of Sweden AB based on the importation/sale of certain light-emitting diodes and products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,240,529 (“the ’529 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,859,464 (“the ’464 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,593,854 (“the ’854 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,658,557 (“the ’557 patent”).  The asserted patents generally disclose placing a transparent LED chip on a transparent plate or surface that has been optimized for light extraction.  The accused products are light bulbs containing filament LEDs with ceramic submounts, and filament LEDs with flexible (polyamide) surfaces.  Savant was terminated from the investigation for good cause on August 27, 2021.  An evidentiary hearing was held from August 30 to September 3, 2021.

According to the ID, ALJ Cheney found no violation of section 337 based on the following conclusions of law:

  1. The Commission has subject matter, personal, and in rem jurisdiction in this investigation.

  1. The importation requirement has been satisfied.

  1. Claims 1, 6, and 8 of the ’529 patent have not been shown to be infringed.

  1. Claims 1, 7, and 9 of the ’464 patent have not been shown to be infringed.

  1. Claim 1 of the ’854 patent has not been shown to be infringed.

  1. Claim 1 of the ’557 patent has not been shown to be infringed.

  1. Claims 1, 6, and 8 of the ’529 patent have been shown invalid as anticipated by the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  1. Claims 1, 6, and 8 of the ’529 patent have been shown invalid as obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  1. Claims 1, 7, and 9 of the ’464 have been shown invalid as anticipated by the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  1. Claims 1, 7, and 9 of the ’464 have been shown invalid as obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  1. Claim 1 of the ’854 patent has been shown been shown invalid as anticipated by the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  1. Claim 1 of the ’854 patent has been shown been shown invalid as obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  1. Claim 1 of the ’557 patent has been shown invalid as anticipated by the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  1. Claim 1 of the ’557 patent has been shown invalid as obvious in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

  1. The technical prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied with respect to the ’529 and ’464 patents if those patent are not invalid, but the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement has not been satisfied with respect to the ’854, and ’557 patents.

  1. The economic prong of the domestic industry requirement has been satisfied with respect to all asserted patents if those patents are not invalid and if any of the domestic industry products practice those patents.
Share
www.xxx-clips-online.com