ITC Finds No Violation of Section 337 in Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-1220)

On February 16, 2022, the Commission issued a notice of its final determination of 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 was 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.; 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.

Following an evidentiary hearing, Chief ALJ Clark S. Cheney issued a final initial determination (“FID”) finding no violation of section 337 because none of the asserted patents were infringed and all were invalid as anticipated or obvious.  See our December 28, 2021 post for more details regarding the FID.

According to the notice, the Commission determined to review the FID in part, and upon review, affirmed the FID’s determination of no violation of section 337.  Specifically, the Commission has determined to (1) affirm with modification the FID’s claim construction findings with respect to the term “sapphire”; (2) affirm with modification the FID’s non-infringement findings as to all remaining asserted patents; (3) affirm with modification the FID’s findings on the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement as to all remaining asserted patents; (4) affirm with modification the FID’s invalidity findings over the Yamazaki or Minato prior art as to all remaining asserted patents, except that the Commission reversed the FID’s finding that the asserted claims of the ’854 and ’557 patents are anticipated by Minato; (5) take no position with respect to the FID’s invalidity findings over the Okamoto, Uemura, and Tamaoki prior art; and (6) take no position as to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.