DCT

2:25-cv-00852

Electronic Theatre Controls Inc v. Elation Lighting Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00852, C.D. Cal., 01/31/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Fuze Teatro light fixture infringes three patents related to advanced methods for controlling the color temperature and spectral output of multi-source light fixtures.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns sophisticated control systems for modern LED-based lighting fixtures, which are crucial in professional environments like theaters and studios for accurately rendering color and mimicking traditional lighting effects.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement on November 20, 2024, approximately two months before filing the complaint. The complaint also alleges Defendant had constructive knowledge through Plaintiff’s patent marking website.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-01-12 U.S. Patent 8,593,074 Priority Date
2013-11-26 U.S. Patent 8,593,074 Issues
2020-02-12 U.S. Patent 11,240,898 Priority Date
2020-02-12 U.S. Patent 11,849,519 Priority Date
2022-02-01 U.S. Patent 11,240,898 Issues
2023-12-19 U.S. Patent 11,849,519 Issues
2024-11-20 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Defendant of infringement
2025-01-31 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,593,074 - "Systems and methods for controlling an output of a light fixture"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inability of lighting systems with discrete color light sources (e.g., LEDs) to produce non-white light that mimics the natural color temperature changes of a traditional incandescent bulb as it dims—an effect often called "dim-to-warm" (’074 Patent, col. 1:36-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a control system for a fixture with four or more light sources. It receives a user's desired color and intensity, then calculates a "white point" based on the intensity level and its relationship to an ideal black-body radiator. This white point is used to select a "color temperature transform," which mathematically shifts the user's desired color to a new, modified color. The system then drives the light sources to produce this modified color, thereby simulating the warming effect of a dimming incandescent bulb ('074 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-17, FIG. 4).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows modern, energy-efficient LED fixtures to replicate the aesthetically familiar and often desirable dimming characteristics of legacy incandescent lighting, a critical feature for theatrical and architectural applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Essential elements of claim 14 include:
    • A system with four or more light sources and a controller.
    • The controller is configured to receive a first input for a color point and a second input for intensity.
    • It determines a "white point" based on a relationship between the intensity input and the color temperature of a black-body radiator.
    • It selects a "color temperature transform" based on the determined white point.
    • It calculates a "third color point" based on the transform, where the third point is different from both the initial color point and the white point.
    • It determines output values for each light source based on this third color point and drives the sources to produce the final output.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 11,240,898 - "Systems, methods, and devices for influencing spectral content of a light output"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that while prior art systems could adjust the spectral content of a light output, they did not provide users with control over the perceived appearance of an object illuminated by the light, separate from the light's own color (chromaticity) (’898 Patent, col. 1:45-62).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method where a user can input a desired "adjustment of a lighting effect" (e.g., enhance color fidelity, change the perceived hue of an object). The system generates a "target spectrum" based on this input. It then energizes the light fixture to produce a new light output that has a different spectral power distribution (approximating the target spectrum) but maintains the same chromaticity as the original light output. This changes how an object's color is rendered without changing the apparent color of the light source itself ('898 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 17).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables "metameric control," allowing lighting designers to subtly or dramatically alter how skin tones, costumes, or scenery appear, while the light source itself remains visually consistent in color and white point.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20 (Compl. ¶41, ¶48).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 (method) include:
    • Energizing a light fixture to produce a "first light output" with a "first chromaticity" and a first spectral power distribution.
    • Receiving a user input for a desired "adjustment of a lighting effect".
    • "Generating a target spectrum" based on the user input.
    • Energizing the fixture to produce a "second light output" with the "first chromaticity" and a second spectral power distribution that approximates the target spectrum.
  • Claim 20 is a controller claim with instructions that mirror the steps of method claim 1.
  • The complaint explicitly states infringement of "claim 20, among other claims" ('898 Patent, ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 11,849,519 - "Systems, methods, and devices for influencing spectral content of a light output"

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application that produced the ’898 Patent, this patent covers similar technology for metameric lighting control. It describes a lighting control system with an interface for receiving user input related to an "adjustment of a lighting effect." The system's controller then generates a "target spectrum" based on that input to produce a new light output that alters the visual rendering of an object while maintaining the light's original chromaticity (’519 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-21).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 19 (Compl. ¶67, ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Fuze Teatro's functionality of receiving DMX signals to select between "brightest, balanced and fidelity output settings." This selection is alleged to constitute an "adjustment of a lighting effect" that causes the controller to generate a corresponding "target spectrum" (Compl. ¶72, ¶75, ¶76).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused product is the Fuze Teatro light fixture (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Fuze Teatro is a lighting fixture that contains at least red, green, blue, mint, and amber LED light sources (Compl. ¶24). It includes a controller that receives DMX values, a standard industry protocol, to control its output (Compl. ¶26, ¶27).
  • Functionally, the complaint alleges the fixture can perform "dim-to-warm control" (Compl. ¶29). It also alleges that a user can select between different output modes, described as "Highest Output, Highest Fidelity, or a blend of both," or "brightest, fidelity and balanced output settings" (Compl. ¶46, ¶72). These selections allegedly cause the fixture to produce different spectral power distributions while maintaining the same color temperature (chromaticity) (Compl. ¶47).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 8,593,074 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
four or more light sources; The Accused Products have at least red, green, blue, mint, and amber LED light sources. ¶24 col. 3:56-64
a controller configured to receive a first input parameter corresponding to a first color point within a color space, The controller is configured to receive a DMX value corresponding to a selected color point. ¶26 col. 2:1-3
receive a second input parameter associated with a desired intensity for the first color point, The controller is configured to receive a DMX value corresponding to a selected intensity. ¶27 col. 2:3-5
determine a white point based on a relationship between the second input parameter and the color temperature of a black-body radiator... The controller is configured to determine a white point based on the intensity input and a relationship to a black-body radiator’s color temperature. ¶28 col. 2:5-8
select a color temperature transform based on the white point, The controller is configured to select a color temperature transform based on the white point as intensity is changed during dim-to-warm control. ¶29 col. 2:8-10
calculate a third color point within the color space based on the color temperature transform... The controller is configured to calculate a third color point based on the selected transform. ¶30 col. 2:10-17
determine a respective light source output value for each of the four or more light sources based on the third color point, and The controller is configured to determine respective output values for the light sources based on the calculated third color point. ¶31 col. 2:14-16
drive each of the four or more light sources at the respective light source output value to produce the output of the light fixture. The controller is configured to drive the light sources at the determined output values to produce the final light output. ¶32 col. 2:16-18
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: Many of the allegations regarding the controller's internal operations (determining a white point, selecting a transform, calculating a third color point) are made "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶28-32). A central issue will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show the accused controller performs these specific, ordered computational steps, rather than using a different method (e.g., a simple lookup table) to achieve a similar "dim-to-warm" visual effect.
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may question whether the accused product's "dim-to-warm control" (Compl. ¶29) functions by creating a "third color point... being different than the first color point" (Compl. ¶30) as required by the claim, or if it operates on a different principle.

U.S. Patent 11,240,898 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
energizing the light fixture to produce a first light output with a first chromaticity and a first spectral power distribution; A user can select a correlated color temperature at a default (brightest) output, which constitutes the first light output. ¶44 col. 2:10-12
receiving a user input representative of a desired adjustment of a lighting effect; A user can send a DMX value to select a different output setting, such as a "balanced or a fidelity output setting," which represents an adjustment of light quality. ¶45 col. 2:12-14
generating a target spectrum based on the user input; The user's selection between modes like "Highest Output, Highest Fidelity, or a blend of both" results in the generation of a target spectrum. ¶46 col. 2:14-15
energizing the light fixture to produce a second light output with the first chromaticity and a second spectral power distribution, the second power distribution approximates the target spectrum. A user can cause the product to produce a second light output (e.g., fidelity output) that has the same chromaticity as the first but a different spectral power distribution that approximates the target spectrum. ¶47 col. 2:15-18
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused product's different modes ("brightest," "fidelity," "balanced") actually produce light with the same chromaticity, as required by the claim and alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶47). This is a technically measurable attribute that will be subject to expert testing and analysis.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute will likely focus on whether selecting a pre-set operating mode like "Highest Fidelity" (Compl. ¶46) meets the claim limitation of "receiving a user input representative of a desired adjustment of a lighting effect." Defendant may argue this is merely a mode selection, not an "adjustment" of an "effect" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples like continuous control over hue or saturation shift ('898 Patent, col. 7:45-52).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’074 Patent:

    • The Term: "color temperature transform"
    • Context and Importance: This term is the central mechanism by which the claimed invention modifies the initial color to mimic black-body radiation. Its construction is critical because it defines the specific mathematical process the accused product must be found to perform. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the accused product uses such a transform, but provides no detail on how it is implemented (Compl. ¶29).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim states the transform "defin[es] a relationship between the first color point and the third color point," which could be read broadly to cover various methods of shifting color ('074 Patent, cl. 14).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the transform in the context of specific mathematical operations involving tristimulus values and matrices of scale factors, suggesting a more limited, computationally specific meaning ('074 Patent, col. 9:31-36; col. 10:55-67).

  • For the ’898 Patent:

    • The Term: "adjustment of a lighting effect"
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the user input that triggers the infringing method. The case may turn on whether the accused product's mode selection (e.g., "fidelity" vs. "brightest") constitutes an "adjustment of a lighting effect."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general. The specification summary mentions receiving an input "representative of a desired adjustment of a lighting effect," which could encompass any user choice that alters the light's rendering properties ('898 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges adjusting "light quality" is such an effect (Compl. ¶45).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of "lighting effects" such as controlling the hue shift or chroma shift of an illuminated object via a continuous slider control ('898 Patent, col. 7:45-52, FIG. 3). Defendant may argue this implies a more granular, user-directed modification than simply selecting a factory preset.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement for all three patents, asserting that Elation actively encourages others (e.g., end-users) to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner with knowledge of the patents (Compl. ¶18, ¶39, ¶65). The basis for contributory infringement is that the Accused Products are a material part of the invention and not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶19, ¶40, ¶66).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patents based on Elation's alleged knowledge of the patents, which the complaint asserts existed "no later than November 20, 2024" as a result of actual notice (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that Elation's infringement has been and continues to be "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶33, ¶59, ¶88).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Fuze Teatro light fixture's controller internally executes the specific computational steps recited in the '074 patent's claims—such as determining a "white point" and applying a "color temperature transform"—or does it achieve a similar visual result through a non-infringing method?
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope: Does selecting a pre-defined operational mode, such as "Highest Fidelity" or "Balanced Output," on the accused product constitute "receiving a user input representative of a desired adjustment of a lighting effect" as that term is used in the '898 and '519 patents?
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does the light output from the accused product maintain the "first chromaticity" when a user switches between its various operational modes, a critical and technically measurable requirement for infringement of the '898 and '519 patents?