DCT

5:23-cv-02603

DS Advanced Enterprises v. Cooper Lighting LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:23-cv-02603, C.D. Cal., 12/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants conducting regular business in the district, deriving substantial revenue from sales within the district, and maintaining physical business locations, warehouses, or utilizing seaports within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Halo" brand of recessed LED lighting products infringes a patent related to a versatile light fixture apparatus designed for both new construction and retrofit installations.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns dual-mode recessed LED lighting fixtures, which aim to simplify inventory for distributors and installation choices for electricians by providing a single product suitable for multiple installation scenarios.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges an extensive pre-suit history, including presentations to Home Depot and Lowe's in 2019 and 2020, respectively, where Plaintiff's patent was disclosed as pending. Plaintiff also alleges it sent cease and desist letters to Lowe's in May 2023 and references a separate, related lawsuit against Lowe's involving the same patent but different accused products. These allegations form the basis of a claim for willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-05-18 U.S. Patent 11,054,118 Priority Date
2019-04-02 Plaintiff's first presentation to Home Depot
2019-08-27 Plaintiff's second presentation to Home Depot
2019-09-23 Earliest alleged sale date of infringing product by Home Depot
2020-01-15 Plaintiff's presentation to Lowe's
2021-07-06 U.S. Patent 11,054,118 Issue Date
2023-05-08 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter to Lowe's
2023-07-27 Earliest alleged sale date of infringing product by Amazon
2023-09-19 Earliest alleged sale date of infringing product by Lowe's
2023-12-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,054,118 - Apparatus to Detachably Attach LED Light Fixture to Ceiling or Recessed Lighting Fixture Housing

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,054,118, Apparatus to Detachably Attach LED Light Fixture to Ceiling or Recessed Lighting Fixture Housing, issued July 6, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes an inefficiency in the lighting market where electricians and consumers must purchase different types of LED recessed light fixtures for "new construction" versus "retrofit" installations. This practice requires lighting distributors and retailers to carry a larger, more costly inventory (’118 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, versatile LED lighting apparatus that can be installed in two different ways. For retrofitting into an existing housing, it uses a set of "retrofit clips" that create a friction fit. For new construction without a pre-existing housing, it uses a different set of "new construction clips" that attach directly to the ceiling material (’118 Patent, col. 1:47-56; col. 2:6-12). This dual-functionality is intended to be embodied in a single product.
  • Technical Importance: The primary value proposition described is the reduction of inventory carried by lighting distributors and retailers by consolidating two product types into one (’118 Patent, col. 2:9-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 35, 144-163).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • An apparatus to detachably attach an LED light fixture to a ceiling and a recessed lighting fixture housing
    • a plurality of "retrofit clips" adaptable to attach with a body of the LED light fixture
    • a plurality of "new construction clips"
    • a plurality of "connecting posts" to hold the new construction clips
    • a "metal housing" to embody a complete fixture
    • a "junction box" to hold connection wirings, the junction box comprising a plurality of output wires
    • a "twist connector" to attach the output wires of the junction box to the metal housing
    • wherein the "retrofit clips" make a friction fit inside the recessed lighting fixture housing
    • wherein the "new construction clips" are attached to the connecting posts if the recessed lighting fixture housing is not present

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Halo" brand lighting products, including models #CJB6099FS1EMWR and #CJB4069FS1EMWR, sold by Defendants Cooper Lighting, Lowe's, Home Depot, and Amazon (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 122-133).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as "2-in-1" or "3 in 1" canless recessed downlights designed for use in "new construction, remodel and retrofit installations" (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 145; p. 30). Marketing materials cited in the complaint explicitly depict two installation methods: "Retrofit into existing housing" and "Canless install anywhere" (Compl. p. 30). This dual-use functionality is central to the infringement allegations and is alleged to be a key commercial feature. The complaint provides visual evidence from a product webpage depicting two distinct installation options for the accused product (Compl. p. 30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 11,054,118 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An apparatus to detachably attach an LED light fixture to at least one of a ceiling, and a recessed lighting fixture housing The accused products are marketed as "2-in-1" or "3 in 1" lights for new construction, remodel, and retrofit, attachable to a ceiling or existing housing. ¶¶ 89, 145 col. 5:10-12
a plurality of retrofit clips (102) adaptable to attach with a body of the LED light fixture...wherein the retrofit clips (102) make a friction fit inside the recessed lighting fixture housing The accused products include friction-fit clips for installation into existing recessed housing. An image from a product manual shows these clips being used for a "Retrofit" installation. ¶145; p. 25, 30 col. 5:13-15; 6:20-24
a plurality of new construction clips (104); [and] a plurality of connecting posts (106) to hold the new construction clips (104)...wherein the new construction clips (104) are attached to the connecting posts (106) if the recessed lighting fixture housing is not present The accused products include spring-loaded clips for "canless" installation directly into a ceiling cutout. Images show these clips and how they attach to the fixture body. ¶145; p. 26, 27 col. 5:16-19; 6:25-28
a metal housing (108) to embody a complete fixture (112) The accused product has a metal housing that contains the LED array and other components. ¶145; p. 28 col. 5:20
a junction box (116) to hold a plurality of connection wirings, wherein the junction box (116) comprises a plurality of output wires The accused product includes an attached junction box with internal wiring. A complaint visual labels the "OUTPUT WIRING" emerging from this box. ¶145; p. 29 col. 5:21-23
a twist connector (118) to attach the output wires of the junction box (116) to the metal housing (108) The accused product uses a connector to link the junction box wiring to the fixture's LED driver/housing. ¶145; p. 29 col. 5:24-26
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be whether the accused products' spring-loaded clips for "canless" installation function in the manner described for the "new construction clips (104)" in the patent. For instance, dependent claim 3 requires that these clips "squeeze ceiling material placed between the new construction clips... and an extremity of the metal housing" (’118 Patent, col. 6:31-35). The infringement case may depend on evidence demonstrating this specific squeezing mechanism in the accused products, beyond the general function of holding the fixture in place.
    • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of how functionally distinct the claimed "retrofit clips" and "new construction clips" must be. The dispute could center on whether the two sets of hardware provided with the accused products map cleanly onto the two distinct clip types recited in claim 1, or if there is a functional or structural ambiguity that might take the product outside the literal scope of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "retrofit clips (102)" and "new construction clips (104)"

  • Context and Importance: The distinction between these two types of clips is fundamental to the patent's claim of a single apparatus for two different installation types. The infringement analysis for every defendant hinges on mapping two separate physical components of the accused products onto these two distinct claim limitations. Practitioners may focus on these terms because the non-obviousness of the invention appears to rest on the combination of these two features into one apparatus.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides general descriptions, stating the "retrofit clips" are for when a housing is present and the "new construction clips" are for when it is not (’118 Patent, col. 4:20-27). Parties may argue this functional difference is the primary definitional characteristic.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific functional details that could be argued as limiting. The "retrofit clips" are described as making a "friction fit" (col. 6:21), and the "new construction clips" are described as "squeez[ing] the ceiling between the... clips... and extremity of the metal housing" (col. 5:27-29). Embodiments shown in Figures 8A and 8B depict visually distinct clip types, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction tied to those specific structures.

  • The Term: "a metal housing (108) to embody a complete fixture (112)"

  • Context and Importance: This term relates to the main body of the lighting apparatus. Its construction is important because the "new construction clips" are claimed to "squeeze" the ceiling material against an "extremity of the metal housing." The physical boundary and composition of the "metal housing" will therefore be critical to determining infringement of this limitation, which is asserted in dependent claim 3.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted broadly to mean the entire body of the light, including the trim ring.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, particularly FIG. 8A, show the "metal housing" (108) as a distinct component from the decorative trim ring. A defendant may argue that the "extremity of the metal housing" refers only to the upper, structural part of the fixture, not the visible lower trim, potentially creating a mismatch with how the accused product functions.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by Defendants providing the accused products along with instructions and marketing materials that direct end-users to install them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 168). The complaint includes product packaging and website screenshots showing "Easy Installation Options!" and "Detailed instructions inside," which may be used to support the allegation that Defendants instructed users on how to perform both the "Retrofit" and "Canless" installations (Compl. p. 30, 37, 40).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged against all Defendants. The allegations against Lowe's and Home Depot are based on pre-suit knowledge from presentations in 2019-2020 where the patent application was allegedly disclosed (Compl. ¶¶ 42-46, 58-60). The claim against Lowe's is further supported by allegations of cease and desist letters sent in May 2023 and a prior lawsuit on the same patent (Compl. ¶¶ 92-94, 111). The complaint asserts Defendants "should have known" of the patent or were "willfully blind" to its existence and their infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 112-114, 117-118).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical and functional mapping: Do the accused products' two distinct mounting mechanisms—the friction-fit clips for retrofitting and the spring-loaded clips for "canless" installation—perform the specific functions recited in the patent's claims for "retrofit clips" and "new construction clips," respectively? The analysis will likely focus on whether the "canless" clips perform the "squeezing" action described in the patent.
  • A second central issue will be willfulness and state of mind: Given the extensive pre-suit history alleged by the Plaintiff—including direct presentations to retailers disclosing a pending patent and, for Lowe's, cease and desist letters and prior litigation—a key question for the court will be whether the Defendants' continued sales constituted egregious conduct sufficient to warrant enhanced damages. The defense will likely turn on what knowledge can be imputed from these events to each of the distinct corporate defendants.
  • A third question will be one of joinder and liability: The complaint joins a manufacturer (Cooper) with several major, independent retailers (Lowe's, Home Depot, Amazon). The court may need to examine whether the joinder of these independent defendants is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299, as the facts supporting infringement and willfulness may differ significantly for each party.