DCT

2:17-cv-07325

COLT Intl Clothing Inc v. Quasar Science LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-07325, C.D. Cal., 01/09/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant Quasar Science resides in the judicial district, while other defendants are alleged to have regular and established places of business and to have committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ bi-color LED lighting tubes, used in the entertainment industry, infringe two patents related to LED tube lights capable of electronically switching between different color temperatures.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the need in film and television production to quickly alternate between standard lighting color temperatures, such as "daylight" and "tungsten," without the time-consuming process of physically changing light fixtures or adding colored filters.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of the patents-in-suit. Specifically, Plaintiff claims it notified counsel for Quasar and Cinelease—who were already representing them in a separate patent suit—of the '642 patent's allowance and subsequent issuance, accompanied by cease-and-desist demands. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit underwent ex parte reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, resulting in the cancellation of some claims and amendments to the asserted independent claims, which may narrow their scope for the purposes of litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-05-17 Earliest Priority Date for '642 and '924 Patents
2017-05-31 Colt notifies Quasar of '642 patent allowance
2017-08-01 U.S. Patent No. 9,719,642 Issues
2017-08-02 Colt provides written notice of issued '642 patent to Defendants
2017-12-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,845,924 Issues
2018-01-09 First Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,719,642 - "Tube Light with Improved LED Array," issued August 1, 2017 ('642 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency and delay in film production caused by needing to change the color temperature of lighting. This often required manually replacing entire sets of fluorescent lamps or fitting them with colored "gels" to switch between "daylight white" and "tungsten" light, which was a "daunting task." (’642 Patent, col. 2:3-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an LED light system built into the form factor of a traditional fluorescent tube. It contains two distinct, intermingled sets of LEDs on a support structure—one set producing a daylight color temperature and the other a tungsten color temperature. A user can electronically switch between the two sets, allowing for an instant change in lighting character without physically altering the equipment. (’642 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:11-20). The patent describes arranging these LEDs in specific matrix patterns, such as a checkerboard, to ensure the light is evenly cast. (’642 Patent, col. 5:46-54; Fig. 1A).
  • Technical Importance: This approach offers significant time and cost savings in production environments by eliminating the manual labor previously required to change lighting color temperatures. (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶25).
  • The key elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A housing with an elongated support structure.
    • A plurality of first LEDs mounted on the support structure, configured to emit broad-spectrum white light in a "daylight" Kelvin temperature range.
    • A plurality of second LEDs mounted on the support structure, configured to emit broad-spectrum white light in a "tungsten" Kelvin temperature range.
    • Circuitry with "means for selectively electronically switching" between driving the first LEDs while the second are off, and vice-versa, where the temperature ranges are nonoverlapping.
    • An elongate cover for diffusing the emitted light.
    • A specific linear form factor (≤ 4 feet long, ~1-1.5 inch diameter) with a connection for receiving AC power at only one end.
    • The LEDs are disposed in a plurality of rows and "equally distributed" to "evenly emit light."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 9,845,924 - "Tube Light with Improved LED Array," issued December 19, 2017 ('924 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '642 patent, the '924 patent addresses the same problem of creating an efficient, switchable bi-color lighting instrument for commercial image recording. (Compl. ¶22; ’924 Patent, col. 2:3-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is substantially similar to that of the '642 patent, describing an LED light system in a fluorescent tube form factor. It comprises two sets of LEDs—one for "cool white light" and one for "warm white light"—that can be selectively and electronically switched. (’924 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:11-23). The claims also describe the LEDs being arranged in rows and distributed along the tube to produce a "substantially even light." (’924 Patent, col. 10:19-23).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a practical solution for film and photography professionals to adjust lighting moods and scenes rapidly, which is valuable in high-cost production environments. (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶27).
  • The key elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • A housing with an elongated support structure.
    • A plurality of first LEDs emitting "cool white light."
    • A plurality of second LEDs emitting "warm white light."
    • Circuitry configured for selectively switching between driving the first or second set of LEDs.
    • An elongate cover for diffusing light.
    • A linear form factor of a fluorescent tube (diameter ≤ ~1.5 inches).
    • Configuration for receiving input power to "selectively light the first and second LEDs."
    • LEDs disposed in rows and "distributed along the length" to "emit a substantially even light."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "bicolor tubes" manufactured, used, and sold by Defendant Quasar Science and distributed or used by the other Defendants. (Compl. ¶¶14, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the accused products are "bicolor LED lighting tubes" designed for the entertainment industry. (Compl. ¶¶6, 14). Their function is described as producing "two different types of white light... without having to change bulbs or filters," which "substantially reduces rigging time" on film and television sets. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint supports these allegations by referencing images of a sample product obtained by the Plaintiff prior to the lawsuit. (Compl. ¶¶16, 19). For example, the complaint attaches an image showing the end cap and power connection of an accused product. (Compl., Ex. 3). Plaintiff alleges these products have been widely adopted by photography and movie studios. (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that inspection of a sample of the accused product, combined with Quasar's website advertising, makes it "evident that the accused products infringe the Colt patents" (Compl. ¶24). While the complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 16 and 17) that are not included with the filing, the core infringement theory is that the accused bi-color tubes practice all elements of the asserted claims.

'642 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a housing having ends and including a support structure in a form of an elongated and narrow surface... The accused products are alleged to be "elongated two color fluorescent light bulbs ('bicolor tube')" which inherently require a housing and internal support structure. (Compl. ¶16). ¶¶16, 24 col. 5:16-24
a plurality of first LEDs mounted on the top side of the support structure and configured to emit... light in a first predetermined Kelvin temperature range of daylight; The accused "bicolor tubes" are alleged to contain LEDs capable of producing different types of white light, which implicitly includes a set corresponding to daylight. (Compl. ¶17). ¶¶17, 19, 24 col. 5:30-36
a plurality of second LEDs mounted on the top side of the support structure and configured to emit... light in a second predetermined Kelvin temperature range of tungsten; The accused "bicolor tubes" are alleged to contain LEDs capable of producing different types of white light, which implicitly includes a set corresponding to tungsten. (Compl. ¶17). ¶¶17, 19, 24 col. 5:36-41
circuitry mounted to the support structure including an LED driver circuit and including means for selectively electronically switching between driving either (i) the first LEDs while the second LEDs are off and (ii) the second LEDs... while the first LEDs are off... The accused products are alleged to allow a user to switch between two different types of white light without changing bulbs, which requires circuitry to selectively power one set of LEDs at a time. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint notes this functionality is for the purpose of practicing the patent. ¶¶17, 24 col. 6:35-44
an elongate cover extending substantially a length of the support structure... for diffusing light... As tube lights, the accused products necessarily include a translucent or diffusing outer cover. (Compl. ¶16). ¶16 col. 5:22-24
wherein the housing and cover together have a linear form factor of a fluorescent tube light having no greater than a length of four feet and a diameter of no greater than about one to one and a half inches... The accused products are alleged to be "bicolor tubes" in a fluorescent light form factor, matching the commercial context of the invention. (Compl. ¶16). ¶16 col. 5:18-21
wherein the first and second LEDs are disposed in a plurality of rows and are equally distributed along the length of the top side of the support structure such that the first LEDs and the second LEDs... evenly emit light... The complaint alleges the accused products are used for photography and movie making, which requires an even light cast, suggesting a distributed LED layout. (Compl. ¶¶17, 24). ¶17 col. 5:46-54

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a "means for selectively electronically switching" limitation. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the scope of this term is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification—such as a manual switch, a remote-controlled switch, or a timer circuit (’642 Patent, col. 6:35-65)—and their equivalents. A central question will be whether the specific switching circuitry in the accused product is structurally equivalent to what is disclosed in the patent. The subsequent amendment of this term during reexamination to "a toggle switch" suggests this was a key area of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires the LEDs be "equally distributed" to "evenly emit light." These are terms of degree. A likely point of contention will be the factual question of whether the physical layout and resulting light output of the accused products meet this standard. This may raise an evidentiary question of what measurements or expert analysis are needed to prove or disprove this limitation is met.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "means for selectively electronically switching between driving either (i) the first LEDs while the second LEDs are off and (ii) the second LEDs to provide light while the first LEDs are off" ('642 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a means-plus-function limitation, and its construction is often determinative of infringement. The scope is not its literal functional language but is restricted to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification that perform the function. The infringement analysis will turn on a comparison between the accused device's circuitry and the patent's disclosed structures.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader scope might point to the variety of disclosed embodiments, arguing that the "means" should not be limited to just one but should encompass the concept of any user-operable electronic switch that achieves the outcome.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes several corresponding structures: a manual switch (34a), a remote-controlled switch using RFID or IR (135), and a counter/relay/timer circuit that responds to modulated power signals. (’642 Patent, Fig. 2A, Fig. 4; col. 6:35-65). A defendant would argue the claim is limited to these specific implementations and their structural equivalents, not any circuit that can switch between two LED sets.

The Term: "suitable for a commercial image recording" ('642 and '924 Patents, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and the body of the claims and sets a quality standard for the light produced. Its definition is critical because if the accused product's light is not "suitable" for this purpose (e.g., due to poor color rendering or flicker), it may not infringe. This term links the technical specifications to the intended use environment.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the lighting is for "TV, stage, auditorium, and/or film studio use," suggesting suitability for a wide range of professional applications. (’642 Patent, col. 1:33-35).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific desired characteristics, such as a high Color Rendering Index (CRI) of "at least about 92 to 93 percent" and minimal color deviation. (’642 Patent, col. 9:9-12). A defendant could argue that "suitable" requires meeting these high, quantitative standards, and a product with a lower CRI would not be "suitable" in the context of the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint pleads induced and contributory infringement against Defendants Quasar and Cinelease. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶¶ B, C, E, F). The factual basis alleged is that Quasar sells the accused products to distributors like Cinelease, who in turn lease them to end-users such as movie studios, who directly infringe by using the products "in precisely the manner and configuration as covered by the '642 patent." (Compl. ¶30).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It provides specific dates and details of sending a notice of allowance (May 31, 2017) and a notice of issuance with a cease-and-desist demand (August 2, 2017) for the '642 patent to counsel for Quasar and Cinelease, who were already engaged in separate litigation with the Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶20, 21, 31). The complaint further alleges that Defendants' infringement has continued despite this notice. (Compl. ¶35).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and equivalence: for the '642 patent, can the "means for... switching" limitation, which is defined by specific circuits in the patent, be proven to read on the switching mechanism used in the accused Quasar product? The subsequent amendment of this claim in reexamination to recite "a toggle switch" highlights this as a central and potentially dispositive question.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of qualitative standards: do the accused products meet the claimed requirements of having LEDs that are "equally distributed" to produce an "evenly emit[ted] light" that is "suitable for commercial image recording"? This will likely require a battle of experts and technical data to resolve the factual dispute over whether the performance of the accused products meets these claimed attributes.
  • A third major question will concern willfulness and damages: given the complaint's detailed allegations of pre-suit notice to Defendants' counsel in a related matter, a court will have to determine whether the continued sale of the accused products constituted objective recklessness. This finding will be critical to the Plaintiff's demand for enhanced damages.