DCT

8:22-cv-01124

Litebook Co Ltd v. Verilux Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:22-cv-01124, C.D. Cal., 02/27/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s light therapy lamps and boxes infringe five patents related to portable light therapy devices and methods of using specific light wavelengths for phototherapy.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns light therapy, a non-pharmacological treatment for various conditions, including sleep and mood disorders, by exposing a user to specific light intensities and wavelengths.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint references a prior proceeding through Amazon's Utility Patent Neutral Evaluation Process (PNEP) initiated by Plaintiff in September 2020 concerning the ’225 Patent. Plaintiff alleges that this process resulted in communications that provided Defendant with knowledge of the asserted patents and culminated in a May 2021 notification from an evaluator that Defendant’s products "likely infringe a claim of the ’225 Patent." The complaint also notes a letter was sent to Defendant regarding the ’140 Patent in December 2016.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-03-14 Earliest Priority Date for ’225, ’481, ’698 Patents
2000-05-10 Earliest Priority Date for ’140, ’507 Patents
2005-04-05 U.S. Patent No. 6,875,225 Issues
2010-03-16 U.S. Patent No. 7,678,140 Issues
2012-01-31 U.S. Patent No. 8,104,481 Issues
2014-05-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,721,698 Issues
2016-12-20 Counsel for Plaintiff allegedly sent letter to Defendant re: ’140 Patent
2020-03-31 U.S. Patent No. 10,603,507 Issues
2020-09-XX Plaintiff commenced Amazon PNEP proceeding
2020-12-01 Defendant's counsel allegedly contacted Plaintiff's counsel to discuss PNEP
2020-12-08 Plaintiff's counsel allegedly advised Defendant in writing re: patents
2021-05-05 Amazon allegedly advised Plaintiff of likely infringement finding in PNEP
2022-06-08 Original Complaint Filed
2023-02-27 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,875,225 - "Light Therapy Device"

  • Issued: April 5, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art light therapy devices as being large, floor- or desk-mountable, and reliant on fragile fluorescent bulbs, making them non-portable. Head-mountable alternatives are described as not generally accepted by patients for public use due to their appearance (ʼ225 Patent, col. 1:17-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable, lightweight, and durable hand-held light therapy device that uses light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as the light source. This design, which resembles a large calculator or hand-held computer, is intended to be simple, energy-efficient, and aesthetically suitable for travel and discreet use (ʼ225 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:41-43).
  • Technical Importance: The use of LEDs in a compact form factor sought to make light therapy for conditions like Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) and jet-lag practical for mobile users, which was a challenge with larger, less durable devices (ʼ225 Patent, col. 1:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 20 (Compl. ¶22).
  • Essential elements of Claim 20 include:
    • An outer housing with an opening and a base for support.
    • A light emitting assembly within the housing containing a plurality of LEDs.
    • The assembly must be capable of generating 2,500 lux to 7,500 lux at a distance of 12 inches.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,104,481 - "Device And Method For Treatment Of Light Difficient [sic] Disorders"

  • Issued: January 31, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as its parent ’225 patent: the need for a portable and discreet device to treat light deficient disorders, in contrast to bulky prior art or socially awkward head-mounted devices (ʼ481 Patent, col. 1:20-35).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method of using a portable light therapy device. The claimed method involves operating a device that has specific features—including an LED light source, a support, and a processor—by actuating a "treatment selector key," setting the device on a surface, and directing the light toward the user’s eyes until a processor-controlled treatment regime is complete (ʼ481 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:45-67). One embodiment describes the processor as part of a "therapy calculator" for determining a treatment regime based on user inputs (ʼ481 Patent, col. 5:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: By claiming the specific method of using the portable device, the patent aims to protect not just the apparatus itself but also its intended and instructed operational use (ʼ481 Patent, col. 1:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A method of treating a patient using an ocular light therapy device that has a housing, support, LED source, diffuser, treatment selector key, and processor.
    • The method steps include:
      • Actuating the treatment selector key to emit light.
      • Setting the device on a support surface spaced from the patient.
      • Directing the light toward the patient's eyes until the processor turns the light source off.
  • The complaint asserts at least "one claim" of the patent (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 8,721,698 - "Light Therapy Device"

  • Issued: May 13, 2014
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the ’481 patent, claims a hand-held ocular light therapy device with specific physical and functional characteristics. It claims an apparatus with an outer housing sized to be hand-held, a support, and an LED light source configured to generate an output suitable for ocular light therapy (ʼ698 Patent, col. 8:45-56).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s light therapy devices embody the claimed invention (Compl. ¶14, ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 7,678,140 - "Photoreceptor System For Melatonin Regulation And Phototherapy"

  • Issued: March 16, 2010
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the biological mechanism of phototherapy, not just the device structure. It claims a method for treating light-responsive disorders by exposing a mammal’s eye to a light source that emits an enhanced spectral region with a peak between 435-488 nm, which the patent identifies as maximally potent for regulating the human circadian system (ʼ140 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:7-22). This is distinguished from light optimized for vision, which peaks at a different wavelength (ʼ140 Patent, col. 4:1-4).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶43).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's light therapy devices are used to perform the claimed method of treatment (Compl. ¶14, ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. 10,603,507 - "Method And Apparatus For Determining Circadian Input"

  • Issued: March 31, 2020
  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the ’140 patent family, this patent claims a method of administering light therapy by exposing a non-visual photoreceptor system to polychromatic light. The method requires the emitted light to have a specific power distribution where the power within the 425-505 nm spectral band is greater than the power emitted in any other region of equal bandwidth (ʼ507 Patent, col. 25:40-54).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s light therapy products of being used to practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶14, ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are a line of Verilux light therapy devices, sold under the "HappyLight" brand, including models VT22, VT31, VT32, VT41, VT42, VT43, VT52, VD46WW3U, and VF09WW3 (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website describing the "HappyLight Therapy Lamps & Boxes" (Compl. p. 4). This visual evidence shows the products marketed as devices that "mimic sunlight to enhance mood, energy, sleep & focus" and are specified as being "full spectrum, 10,000 lux" (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges these products are sold throughout the United States via various channels, including Defendant's website (Compl. ¶3, ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit G to detail its infringement contentions; however, this exhibit was not provided for analysis (Compl. ¶22, ¶29, ¶36, ¶43, ¶50). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

For the ’225 Patent, the complaint alleges that the Accused Products are portable light therapy devices that have the structural elements of claim 20: a housing with a support, an opening, and an internal light-emitting assembly comprised of LEDs (Compl. ¶14, ¶22).

For the ’481 Patent, the complaint alleges direct infringement through Defendant's internal testing and use of the products and indirect infringement by encouraging customers to perform the claimed method of treatment (Compl. ¶29, ¶30). The inducement allegations are based on Defendant allegedly providing instructions and promoting uses that involve placing the device on a surface and directing the light toward the user’s eyes for therapeutic purposes (Compl. ¶30).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the ’225 Patent, a central question may be whether the Accused Products, marketed as "10,000 lux," fall within the claim limitation of "2,500 lux to 7,500 lux at 12 inches." Defendant may argue this is outside the literal scope of the claim. Plaintiff alleges infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents, suggesting this discrepancy is a potential point of contention (Compl. ¶22). For the ’481 Patent, a question is whether the user controls on the Accused Products constitute a "treatment selector key" that initiates a "treatment regime" managed by a "processor," as those terms are used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’140 and ’507 Patents, a key technical question will be evidentiary: does the spectral output of the accused "full spectrum" lamps meet the specific wavelength and power distribution requirements of the claims? The complaint does not provide technical data on the spectral output of the Accused Products.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "capable of generating 2,500 lux to 7,500 lux at 12 inches" (’225 Patent, claim 20)

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this numerical range is central to literal infringement. Defendant’s products are marketed at "10,000 lux," which is outside this range (Compl. p. 4). Practitioners may focus on whether this claim language defines an absolute boundary or a typical operational range, which will be critical for both literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents analyses.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the light emitting assembly as emitting "a light of illumination adequate for treatment of light deficient disorders," and then provides the 2,500-7,500 lux range as a specific capability (ʼ225 Patent, col. 2:50-54; col. 2:65-67). A party could argue the range is exemplary of an adequate output, not a strict limitation that excludes more powerful devices.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses specific numerical bounds. A party could argue that the patentee deliberately chose this range to define the invention and distinguish it from prior art or other devices, and that any output outside this range is disclaimed.

Term: "treatment selector key" (’481 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in a method claim, and its construction will determine whether operating the Accused Products constitutes performance of the claimed steps. If the term is construed to require a sophisticated input mechanism (like the patent's described "therapy calculator"), a simple on/off switch may not infringe. If construed more broadly to mean any user input that initiates a therapy session, infringement may be easier to establish.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the complexity of the "key." A party could argue that any button or switch a user actuates to begin a light therapy session meets this definition, as its function is to "select" the "treatment."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed description of a "therapy calculator" with a "key pad" for inputting complex information like departure city and wake-up time to determine a treatment regime (ʼ481 Patent, col. 5:1-41). A party would argue this detailed embodiment informs and limits the meaning of "treatment selector key" to something more than a simple power switch.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges induced infringement for the ’481, ’140, and ’507 Patents. The allegations are based on Defendant encouraging customer use of the Accused Products through instructions, website promotions, and user reviews that allegedly guide users to perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶30, ¶44, ¶51).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged for all five patents. The complaint bases this on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the patents and infringement. For the ’225, ’481, ’698, and ’507 Patents, knowledge is alleged from at least December 2020 via communications related to the Amazon PNEP (Compl. ¶26, ¶33, ¶40, ¶54). For the ’140 Patent, knowledge is alleged from at least December 20, 2016, based on a letter Plaintiff’s counsel allegedly sent to Defendant (Compl. ¶47).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the claimed light output range of "2,500 lux to 7,500 lux" in the ’225 patent strictly exclude devices marketed as "10,000 lux," or can the claim be interpreted to cover such devices, either literally under certain conditions or through the doctrine of equivalents?
  • A second key issue will be one of functional construction: do the user controls on the accused products perform the role of a "treatment selector key" for setting a "treatment regime" as required by the ’481 method patent, or does the patent’s detailed disclosure of a "therapy calculator" narrow the claim scope to exclude devices with simpler on/off or intensity controls?
  • A third central question will be evidentiary and technical: for the patents related to specific light wavelengths (’140 and ’507), does the spectral output of the accused "full spectrum" lamps in fact have the specific power distribution concentrated in the blue-green (425-505 nm) range required to infringe the claims, an issue for which the complaint provides marketing material but no technical measurements?