DCT

2:23-cv-06318

Seasonal Specialties LLC v. LEDup Enterprises LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-06318, C.D. Cal., 11/07/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant resides in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement in the State of California and the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s decorative lighting products, including pre-lit artificial Christmas trees and LED light strings, infringe four U.S. patents related to two distinct technologies: a system for switching light strings between steady-on and special effects modes, and a resistive bypass circuit that keeps a light string illuminated when an individual bulb fails.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on technology for mass-market decorative LED lighting, a field where cost-effective solutions for enhanced functionality and reliability are commercially significant, particularly in the holiday products sector.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit through actual notice from Plaintiff and constructive notice from Plaintiff's marking of its own products with the relevant patent numbers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-12-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’252 and ’794 Patents
2014-10-09 Earliest Priority Date for ’437 and ’265 Patents
2017-01-24 U.S. Patent No. 9,554,437 Issues
2018-09-18 U.S. Patent No. 10,080,265 Issues
2021-08-17 U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252 Issues
2022-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 11,533,794 Issues
2023-11-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,554,437 - "Decorative Light String Switchable Between Different Illumination States"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,554,437, "Decorative Light String Switchable Between Different Illumination States," issued January 24, 2017. (Compl. ¶23).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating decorative light strings that can switch between a "steady-on" mode and a special effects mode (e.g., twinkling) without the cost and complexity of additional control wires or expensive, individually addressable bulbs. (’437 Patent, col. 1:41-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a two-part circuit system. A "first switching circuit" integrated into each special-effect bulb contains a controller programmed to produce a visual effect like twinkling. Crucially, this controller is designed to begin with an initial, brief "steady on illuminated state" every time it is powered up before proceeding to its special effect cycle. A separate "second switching circuit," typically in a central controller, can then select the mode. To achieve the special effect, it supplies continuous power. To achieve the steady-on effect, it "periodically interrupt[s] the flow of current" to the bulbs at a high frequency. These rapid power interruptions constantly reset the bulbs' internal controllers to their initial steady-on state. Because the interruptions are faster than the human eye can perceive flicker, the series of short "on" pulses creates the visual appearance of a continuous steady light. (’437 Patent, col. 4:21-56; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for dual-mode functionality in a simple two-wire light string, providing a cost-effective alternative to more complex and expensive solutions. (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11. (Compl. ¶24).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An electrically powered illumination element;
    • A first switching circuit in communication with the element, containing a controller to produce a special lighting effect, where the circuit initiates the effect by "starting from an initial steady-on illuminated state" upon power-up; and
    • A second switching circuit configured to "periodically interrupt the flow of current" to the first circuit at a frequency sufficient to cause the first circuit to reset to its steady-on state without proceeding to the special effect. (’437 Patent, col. 8:22-51).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent but does so for others referenced in its exhibits. (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 66).

U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252 - "Resistive bypass for series lighting circuit"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252, "Resistive bypass for series lighting circuit," issued August 17, 2021. (Compl. ¶31).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In traditional series-wired light strings, the failure of a single bulb (e.g., burnout, loose connection) breaks the electrical circuit and causes the entire string to go dark. (’252 Patent, col. 1:33-44). While bypass circuits existed, they had drawbacks related to cost, complexity, and potential for overheating when multiple bulbs failed. (Compl. ¶20).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a simple and robust solution: connecting a "bypass resistor" in parallel with each individual LED light source. This resistor is designed to be "in circuit and conducting current at all times when current is flowing through the circuit," regardless of the LED's status. It must also be capable of operating at a "one hundred percent duty cycle." When the LED is functional, it presents a lower-resistance path for the current. If the LED fails and becomes an open circuit, the current is shunted through the parallel bypass resistor, allowing the rest of the light string to remain illuminated. (’252 Patent, col. 3:35-44; Claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provides a low-cost method to dramatically improve the reliability and longevity of series-connected LED light strings, a key feature for consumer holiday lighting. (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10. (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A resistor bypass circuit for a series lighting circuit comprising a plurality of serially connected LED light sources;
    • A bypass resistor connected in parallel with at least one of the light sources;
    • The bypass resistor is "in circuit and conducting current at all times when current is flowing through the circuit regardless of whether the LED light sources are conducting current therethrough"; and
    • The bypass resistor is "capable operating on a one hundred percent duty cycle." (’252 Patent, col. 13:50-61).
  • The complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart that includes dependent claims 2, 4, and 8. (Compl. ¶¶ 90-91).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,080,265

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,080,265, "Decorative Light String Switchable Between Different Illumination States," issued September 18, 2018. (Compl. ¶25).
  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the "Steady-On Patents" family, this patent addresses the problem of providing selectable lighting modes in a cost-effective manner. The claimed solution is a system where a first circuit within each bulb initiates a special effect after a default "on" state, and a second, external circuit can force the bulb to remain in that "on" state by sending rapid, resetting power interruptions, creating a perceived steady light. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-17; ’265 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 10. (Compl. ¶26).
  • Accused Features: The "Pre-Lit Trees," which are alleged to have special illumination LEDs with internal controllers (first circuit) and a main circuit board with a mode selector (second circuit) that controls whether the LEDs perform a twinkling effect or are held in a steady-on state. (Compl. ¶¶ 38-44).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,533,794

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,533,794, "Resistive bypass for series lighting circuit," issued December 20, 2022. (Compl. ¶33).
  • Technology Synopsis: As part of the "Resistive Bypass Patents" family, this patent addresses the reliability issue of series-wired light strings. The invention describes a bypass resistor placed in parallel with an LED light source that is "in circuit and conducting current at all times across the light sources when current is flowing," ensuring the string remains lit even if an individual LED fails. (Compl. ¶¶ 18-21; ’794 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 15. (Compl. ¶34).
  • Accused Features: The "Light String" products, which are alleged to contain serially connected LEDs where each is paired with a parallel bypass resistor that allows current to flow continuously through the circuit even when a bulb is removed or burns out. (Compl. ¶¶ 49-53).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two categories of accused products:

  1. "Pre-Lit Trees": Including the "7.5 ft. Starry Light Fraser Fir Flocked LED Pre Lit Artificial Christmas Tree," the "9 ft Starry Light Flocked Christmas Tree," and the "7.5 ft Grand Duchess Balsam Fir Christmas Tree." These products are accused of infringing the ’437 and ’265 Patents. (Compl. ¶38).
  2. "Light String" products: A detailed list of decorative LED light strings sold by retailers Fleet Farm and Home Depot. These products are accused of infringing the ’252 and ’794 Patents. (Compl. ¶49, pp. 12-16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Pre-Lit Trees are described as containing thousands of "color-changing" or "remote-operated" LEDs. (Compl. ¶39). They feature a user-selectable mode controller that allows switching between a "Steady" mode and a "Twinkle" mode. The complaint alleges this functionality is achieved by a main circuit board that controls power delivery to special illumination LEDs, each of which contains its own integrated circuit (IC). (Compl. ¶¶ 40-44). The image of the controller and circuit board illustrates the user interface and the alleged "second switching circuit." (Compl. Ex. E, p. 111).
  • The Light String products are marketed with "Continuous-ON Technology," which allegedly permits the string to "Stay On Even if a Bulb Burns Out, is Loose or is Missing." (Compl. Ex. I, p. 151). The complaint alleges these products contain serially connected LEDs, each paired with a parallel bypass resistor that provides a continuous path for current, regardless of the operational state of the LED. (Compl. ¶¶ 50-53).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,554,437 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an electrically powered illumination element; The accused Pre-Lit Trees contain special illumination LEDs powered by electricity. ¶¶ 39, 41 col. 8:25
a first switching circuit...containing a controller for...produc[ing] a predetermined special illumination visual lighting effect...initiating said lighting effect when powered up starting from an initial steady-on illuminated state... Each special illumination LED allegedly contains an integrated circuit (IC) that constitutes the "first switching circuit." This IC is alleged to control the LED to first illuminate in a steady-on state before proceeding to a twinkling cycle. ¶¶ 40-41 col. 8:26-44
a second switching circuit...configured to periodically interrupt the flow of current to said first circuit, at an interruption frequency sufficient to cause the [first] circuit to reset to its steady on state without proceeding to...special lighting effects... The circuit board in the Pre-Lit Trees allegedly constitutes the "second switching circuit." When the user selects "Steady On" mode, this board is alleged to send a series of power interruptions to the LED ICs, causing them to repeatedly reset to their initial steady-on state. The image of an oscilloscope trace shows these alleged interruptions. ¶¶ 42-43; Ex. E, p. 114 col. 8:45-51

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Technical Questions: A key question for the court may be whether the accused Pre-Lit Trees' "Steady On" mode operates via the specific mechanism claimed: a "second switching circuit" that periodically interrupts power for the express purpose of resetting the "first switching circuit" in the LED. The complaint provides an oscilloscope image purporting to show "Frequency Interrupting Pulses" when the steady mode is active, which may serve as evidence for this theory. (Compl. Ex. E, p. 114). A defense may focus on whether this is a true reset mechanism or a different form of power modulation, such as pulse-width modulation, that achieves a steady appearance without relying on the claimed reset functionality.
  • Scope Questions: The definition of a "circuit" may be disputed. Does the accused multi-function circuit board on the Pre-Lit Tree meet the claim definition of a "second switching circuit... configured to periodically interrupt," or does it operate in a fundamentally different way that falls outside the claim scope?

U.S. Patent No. 11,096,252 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of serially connected LED light sources and a bypass resistor being connected in parallel with at least one of the respective light sources... The accused Light String products are alleged to contain serially connected LEDs, and product packaging states a bypass resistor allows the lights to stay on if a bulb is missing, which suggests a parallel connection. ¶¶ 50-51 col. 5:12-16
said bypass resistor being in circuit and conducting current at all times when current is flowing through the circuit regardless of whether the LED light sources are conducting current therethrough... Plaintiff alleges that testing of the accused products shows that current flows through the bypass resistor at all times when power is supplied to the string, irrespective of the LED's condition. ¶52 col. 8:2-5
and wherein said bypass resistor is capable operating on a one hundred percent duty cycle. The complaint alleges that when power is supplied to the products, current passes through the bypass resistors at all times, which constitutes 100% duty cycle operation. A photograph of a test setup is provided as evidence. ¶53; Ex. I, p. 152 col. 13:58-61

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Technical Questions: The central technical dispute will likely concern the limitation "conducting current at all times." A defense could argue that while a resistor is physically present, the current flowing through it during normal LED operation is de minimis or negligible due to the much lower resistance of the LED path, and that it only meaningfully "conducts" current upon LED failure. The case may turn on expert testimony and evidence from test setups, such as the one depicted in the complaint, to determine if the current flow is continuous and significant enough to meet the claim limitation. (Compl. Ex. I, p. 152).
  • Scope Questions: The construction of "conducting current" will be critical. Does this term imply any non-zero flow of electrons, or does it require a level of current sufficient to be considered an active part of the circuit's normal operation, rather than just leakage current?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "periodically interrupt the flow of current" (from '437 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of how the '437 patent achieves its "steady-on" effect from a special-effects bulb. The nature of this "interruption" will be a central point of contention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue that its "steady" mode is achieved by a different power delivery scheme (e.g., a form of dimming or high-frequency modulation) that does not constitute an "interruption" intended to cause a "reset."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the effect as sending a "reset signal/pulse" and refers to the required frequency being as low as "50-60 Hz." (’437 Patent, col. 5:13-22). This could support an interpretation that covers various forms of pulsed power delivery.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links the interruption directly to a specific function: "to cause the second circuit to reset to its steady on state without proceeding to said other special lighting effects." (’437 Patent, col. 8:47-50). This suggests the interruption is not merely any periodic power drop, but one specifically timed and sufficient to trigger the reset logic of the bulb's internal controller before its special-effect cycle begins.

The Term: "conducting current at all times" (from '252 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the patented invention from prior art bypasses that are typically non-conductive until a bulb fails. The plaintiff's infringement theory rests on this continuous conduction. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant will likely argue that in a circuit with parallel paths of vastly different resistance, the high-resistance path (the resistor) is not meaningfully "conducting" until the low-resistance path (the LED) fails.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim is absolute, stating conduction occurs "at all times when current is flowing through the circuit regardless of whether the LED light sources are conducting." (’252 Patent, col. 13:55-58). This supports a literal interpretation where any non-zero current satisfies the element.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background describes the problem of prior art where a bypass is only engaged upon failure. (’252 Patent, col. 1:45-2:4). A defendant may argue that "conducting current" should be interpreted in this context to mean carrying a material portion of the circuit's current, not a negligible amount that would flow through any parallel resistor.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four patents. The inducement claims are based on allegations that Defendant sells the accused products to retailers (e.g., Home Depot, Fleet Farm) and end users with the knowledge and intent that they will be used in a manner that infringes the patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 75, 88, 99).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all patents. The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge, arising from both "actual notice of infringement from Seasonal" and "constructive knowledge" from Seasonal's practice of marking its patented products. (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 48, 54, 57).

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

  • A core issue for the "Steady-On" patents (’437, ’265) will be one of technical operation: Does the accused "Steady" mode function by using a second circuit to send periodic, resetting power interruptions to a first circuit within the LED, as claimed, or is the steady visual effect achieved through an alternative electronic method that falls outside the specific mechanism described in the patent claims?
  • A key evidentiary question for the "Resistive Bypass" patents (’252, ’794) will be one of definitional threshold: What level of electrical current constitutes "conducting current at all times" through the bypass resistor? The resolution will likely depend on expert analysis of whether the continuous current flow alleged by the plaintiff is technically and legally sufficient to meet this claim limitation, or if it is de minimis during normal LED operation.
  • Across all claims, the allegations of pre-suit notice raise the stakes on willfulness. A central question will be whether Defendant's conduct was objectively reckless, should infringement be found, which will depend on the timing and substance of any prior communications and the reasonableness of its potential non-infringement or invalidity defenses.