DCT

2:19-cv-06573

Regents Of University Of California v. IKEA Of Sweden Ab

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-06573, C.D. Cal., 07/30/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California based on Defendants’ infringing sales within the district and the presence of numerous regular and established IKEA retail locations, including a specific store in Burbank where an accused sale occurred.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ filament-style LED light bulbs infringe four patents related to foundational LED design and light extraction technologies developed at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns "filament" Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), which are designed for high energy efficiency and an aesthetic appearance mimicking traditional incandescent bulbs for the consumer lighting market.
  • Key Procedural History: While not mentioned in the complaint, post-filing Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against all four asserted patents. According to IPR certificates issued in 2023 and attached to the patent documents, numerous claims in each of the asserted patents, including some independent claims, have been cancelled. The survival of any asserted claims through these proceedings and their scope will be central to the litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-11-15 Earliest Priority Date ('789, '529, '464 Patents)
2006-12-11 Earliest Priority Date ('916 Patent)
2010-08-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,781,789 Issues
2014-01-01 Filament LED bulbs become widely available in the U.S. (approx.)
2016-01-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,240,529 Issues
2018-01-02 U.S. Patent No. 9,859,464 Issues
2019-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,217,916 Issues
2019-05-22 Alleged infringing sale at IKEA in Burbank, CA
2019-07-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,781,789 - "Transparent Mirrorless Light Emitting Diode"

Issued August 24, 2010 (’789 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes that in conventional LEDs, light is often reflected by a mirror on the backside of the device to increase forward output; however, this reflected light can be re-absorbed by the active light-emitting layer, which decreases the device's overall efficiency. (’789 Patent, col. 2:27-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "mirrorless" LED structure where all layers, except for the active light-emitting layer itself, are transparent to the wavelength of light being produced. This design allows light to be extracted from multiple sides of the LED chip, minimizing the opportunity for efficiency-sapping re-absorption. The patent also teaches that surfaces of the LED can be roughened or patterned to further enhance light extraction. (’789 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-53).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the fundamental light extraction efficiency of LEDs by avoiding the re-absorption losses inherent in designs that rely on internal mirrors. (’789 Patent, col. 2:27-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" of the ’789 Patent (Compl. ¶48). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • An opto-electronic device, comprising: a light emitting diode (LED) that emits light out of the LED from multiple sides of the LED,
    • wherein all layers of the LED are transparent for an emission wavelength except for an emitting layer.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 9,240,529 - "Textured Phosphor Conversion Layer Light Emitting Diode"

Issued January 19, 2016 (’529 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses efficiency losses in white LEDs, where a phosphor layer converts blue light from an LED chip into other colors (e.g., yellow) to create white light. A significant portion of this converted light can be reflected back toward the LED chip and be re-absorbed, reducing the overall brightness and efficiency of the bulb. (’529 Patent, col. 5:14-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes texturing or shaping the surface of the phosphor layer. This non-smooth surface disrupts internal reflection and directs more of the converted light away from the absorbing LED chip, thereby increasing the amount of light that escapes the device and improving its luminous efficacy. (’529 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:40-48).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a method to overcome a primary source of efficiency loss in the phosphor conversion process, which is the dominant method for producing commercial white LED lighting. (’529 Patent, col. 5:20-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "at least one claim" of the ’529 Patent (Compl. ¶52). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • A light emitting device, comprising:
    • an LED chip emitting light at a first wavelength, wherein the emitted light is extracted from both front and back sides of the LED chip;
    • a lead frame to which the LED chip is attached, wherein the LED chip resides on or above a transparent plate in the lead frame that allows the emitted light to be extracted out of the LED chip through the transparent plate...; and
    • a phosphor for converting the light emitted by the LED chip at the first wavelength to a second wavelength.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 9,859,464 - "Light Emitting Diode With Light Extracted From Front And Back Sides Of A Lead Frame"

Issued January 2, 2018 (’464 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses an LED device architecture designed to maximize light output by enabling extraction from both the front and back of the LED chip (Compl. ¶39). A key element is the use of a lead frame—the component that provides mechanical support and electrical connections—that incorporates a transparent plate, allowing light that would normally be blocked by the mounting structure to escape. (’464 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶56). Independent claims are 1 and 11.

Accused Features

The accused features are the physical construction of the IKEA filament LED bulbs, specifically their ability to emit light omnidirectionally and the alleged use of a supportive lead frame structure that facilitates this multi-sided light extraction (Compl. ¶¶44, 56).

U.S. Patent No. 10,217,916 - "Transparent Light Emitting Diodes"

Issued February 26, 2019 (’916 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a transparent LED composed of III-nitride layers where all layers except the active light-emitting region are transparent to the emitted wavelength, allowing for effective, multi-directional light extraction. The invention further teaches that texturing or shaping the surface of these layers can enhance this extraction, and that the device can be mounted on a lead frame with a transparent plate. (’916 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts "at least one claim" (Compl. ¶60). Independent claims are 1 and 14.

Accused Features

The accused features include the alleged transparent material composition of the filament LEDs and the lead frame design that permits light to be extracted from both the front and back of the LED chip (Compl. ¶¶44, 60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "filament" LED light bulbs sold under the IKEA brand, including specific models such as the SILLBO LED 370 lm, LUNNOM LED 100 lm, and ROLLSBO LED 200 lm (Compl. ¶¶18, 44). The complaint provides an image illustrating a representative "Filament LED Light Bulb" and a magnified view of the "Filament LED" component (Compl. p. 2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products are designed to emulate the appearance of traditional incandescent bulbs by using visible, glowing LED "filaments" inside a clear glass bulb (Compl. ¶11). They are marketed as energy-efficient, long-lasting, and aesthetically pleasing alternatives to older lighting technologies (Compl. ¶¶12, 14). The complaint asserts that sales of filament LED light bulbs in the U.S. were expected to exceed $1 billion in 2019, positioning them as a commercially significant product category (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits F, G, H, and I) purporting to demonstrate infringement for each asserted patent, but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint. The complaint's narrative allegations are general, stating that the Accused Products meet "each and every limitation of at least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents, literally or by equivalents" (Compl. ¶¶44, 48, 52, 56, 60). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the claims that survived post-grant IPR proceedings can be construed to cover the specific structures used in the accused IKEA products. The interpretation of claim terms will be critical in determining if the commercial embodiments, which are mass-produced consumer products, fall within the scope of patents directed at specific semiconductor structures.
  • Technical Questions: The case may raise factual questions about the actual construction of the accused filament LEDs. For instance, do they utilize a "lead frame" with a "transparent plate" as required by claims of the ’529 and ’464 Patents, or do they employ an alternative mounting structure? Similarly, do the semiconductor layers in the accused products meet the "transparent for an emission wavelength" limitation of the ’789 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "transparent for an emission wavelength"

(from ’789 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

The definition of this term is fundamental to the ’789 Patent's core concept of a "mirrorless" LED. The dispute may turn on the degree of transparency required to meet this limitation—whether it means nearly lossless transmission or allows for some degree of absorption or scattering.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention generally as one where "all of the layers except for the active region are transparent," which may suggest the term should be interpreted functionally to mean any structure that avoids the use of intentional mirrors and primarily allows light to pass through. (’789 Patent, col. 2:44-47).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts the invention with prior art that suffers from re-absorption, suggesting "transparent" could be construed more narrowly to require a level of transparency high enough to substantially eliminate this specific re-absorption problem. (’789 Patent, col. 2:27-37).

The Term: "transparent plate"

(from ’529 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This structural limitation is central to claims in the ’529, ’464, and ’916 patents. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the substrate or support structure on which the accused LED filaments are mounted qualifies as a "transparent plate" within a "lead frame."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the related ’916 patent, which also claims a transparent plate, discloses that the plate may be comprised of "glass, quartz, sapphire, diamond or other material transparent for the desired emission wavelength." (’916 Patent, col. 20:1-5). This broad list of materials may support an interpretation that covers various transparent substrates.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the related patents often depict the "transparent plate" as a distinct, flat component upon which the LED chip is mounted within a larger lead frame structure (e.g., ’916 Patent, Fig. 22A, item 2220). This could support an argument that the term requires a specific, discrete plate-like component, rather than any transparent substrate that is part of the overall filament assembly.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which pertains to the importation into the U.S. of a product made by a process patented in the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶48, 52, 56, 60). This allegation is supported by the factual assertion that the Accused Products are labeled "Made in China" (Compl. ¶46). The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of Claim Viability and Scope: Given the cancellation of numerous claims in IPRs initiated after the complaint was filed, a threshold question is which, if any, of the originally asserted claims remain valid. For any surviving claims, the central dispute will be whether their scope can be construed to read on the specific, mass-produced designs of the accused IKEA filament LED bulbs.
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of Structural Correspondence: Does the physical construction of the accused IKEA products incorporate the specific structures recited in the claims, such as a "lead frame" containing a "transparent plate" and semiconductor layers that are "transparent for an emission wavelength"? The outcome will depend on factual evidence regarding the materials and architecture of the accused bulbs.
  3. A final question will be one of Damages: If infringement of a valid claim is found, a significant dispute will likely arise over the appropriate reasonable royalty. This will involve apportioning the value of the patented technology from the many other features of the final consumer product and considering the economic impact of the widespread, allegedly unlicensed use of the technology in the filament LED market.