DCT
1:16-cv-00162
Variable Lighting LLC v. Polygroup Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Variable Lighting LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Polygroup Ltd. and Polygroup Services N.A. Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-00162, D. Del., 03/16/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants being incorporated in Delaware and conducting continuous business in the state, including selling the accused products through retail stores and online channels.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pre-lit artificial Christmas trees, which feature selectable, multi-color lighting effects, infringe a patent related to variable-effect lighting systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves programmable electronic controllers for decorative light strings, enabling complex and varied color-changing patterns.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has been aware of the patent-in-suit since at least May 27, 2015, as a result of a prior lawsuit Plaintiff filed against several of Defendant's retail customers for infringement of the same patent. This prior notice forms the basis of the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-04-21 | U.S. Patent No. 6,285,140 Priority Date |
| 2001-09-04 | U.S. Patent No. 6,285,140 Issued |
| 2015-05-27 | Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of patent from prior lawsuit |
| 2016-03-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,285,140 - "Variable–Effect Lighting System"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,285,140, “Variable–Effect Lighting System,” issued September 4, 2001.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes prior art variable lighting systems as often being bulky, electronically complex, or limited in the range and intricacy of the color displays they could produce (e.g., controlling only brightness or having a restricted rate of change) (’140 Patent, col. 1:12-col. 2:11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a simplified lighting system using a programmable controller, such as a microcontroller, to execute pre-stored patterns. This controller precisely sets the "conduction angle" of multi-color illuminating elements (e.g., LEDs) to generate a "myriad of colour displays" ('140 Patent, col. 1:6-7; col. 2:22-27). The system can be adapted for either AC power sources with series-connected lamps (Fig. 1a) or DC power sources with parallel-connected lamps (Fig. 2a), providing design flexibility ('140 Patent, col. 3:1-17).
- Technical Importance: The patented approach enabled the creation of inexpensive, versatile, and electronically controlled decorative lighting with a wide variety of user-selectable patterns, avoiding the complexity of prior art H-bridge circuits or the bulk of mechanical systems ('140 Patent, col. 2:8-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 18 ('Compl. ¶16).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a system comprising:
- A lamp assembly with a plurality of multi-colored lamps connected in parallel with a DC voltage source
- Each lamp having a first and a second illuminating element for producing two different colors
- A programmable lamp controller for setting a "conduction angle" of the elements according to a pre-determined pattern stored in the controller's memory
- The controller includes a first electronic switch for the first element and a second electronic switch for the second element
- Independent Claim 18 recites a system comprising:
- A lamp assembly with a plurality of multi-colored lamps connected in series with an AC voltage source
- Each lamp having a first illuminating element producing a first color during the first AC voltage phase and a second element producing a second color during the opposite phase
- A programmable lamp controller for setting a "conduction angle" of the elements according to a pre-determined pattern stored in the controller's memory
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are a line of pre-lit artificial Christmas trees, including the “Color Switch Plus 7.5 ft. Prelit Sonoma Spruce Christmas Tree” and other similar models (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products feature a "plurality of multicolored lights" connected in parallel to a DC voltage source (Compl. ¶14).
- Functionality is managed by an "electronics module containing a circuit board with a microcontroller" and a "user operable switch." This module allows a user to control the lights, selecting between all-white or multicolored light, and to set "varying patterns of colors" (Compl. ¶14).
- The complaint alleges these products are sold through major U.S. retailers, including Kmart, Sears, and Target, both in-store and online (Compl. ¶7).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s factual allegations focus on a DC-powered system, which aligns with the limitations of Claim 1.
’140 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a lamp assembly comprising a plurality of multi-coloured lamps in parallel with a DC voltage source | The accused products include a "plurality of multicolored lights in various configurations and in parallel with a DC voltage source." | ¶14 | col. 16:15-17 |
| each said multi-coloured lamp comprising a first illuminating element for producing a first colour of light, and a second illuminating element for producing a second colour of light different from the first colour | The user can control the lights to be "all white or multicolored," which suggests the presence of at least two distinct illuminating elements or color states. | ¶14 | col. 16:18-22 |
| a programmable lamp controller coupled to the lamp assembly for setting a conduction angle of each said illuminating element according to at least one predetermined pattern | The products contain an "electronics module" with a "microcontroller" that is used to "control the color of the lights" and set them to "varying patterns of colors." | ¶14 | col. 16:23-26 |
| each said predetermined pattern being stored in a memory of the controller | The allegation of a "microcontroller" that can be set to "varying patterns" implies that these patterns are stored within the controller. | ¶14 | col. 16:27-28 |
| the lamp controller including a first electronic switch coupled to the first illuminating element and a second electronic switch coupled to the second illuminating element | The "electronics module" is alleged to contain "a circuit board with a microcontroller and other electronic components" that performs the color control, which implies the presence of switching circuitry. | ¶14 | col. 16:29-32 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused products create "varying patterns of colors." A central issue may be whether this functionality meets the claim limitation of "setting a conduction angle." The definition of "conduction angle" may be disputed, particularly how the term, which has a clear meaning in AC phase control, applies to the DC embodiment of Claim 1.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges an "electronics module" with a "microcontroller." A key question for the court will be what evidence supports the allegation that this module contains the specific architecture of a "first electronic switch" and a "second electronic switch" separately coupled to the respective illuminating elements, as required by Claim 1.
- Alternative Pleading: The complaint asserts both Claim 1 (DC, parallel) and Claim 18 (AC, series). While the factual allegations in paragraph 14 point toward Claim 1, the assertion of Claim 18 raises the question of which electrical architecture the accused products actually employ.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "setting a conduction angle"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core function of the claimed controller. The infringement analysis for both asserted claims hinges on whether the accused products' method for creating color patterns can be characterized as "setting a conduction angle." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation could either limit the claims to a specific type of electronic control or broaden them to cover various methods of pulse-width or duty-cycle modulation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the DC-powered embodiment (relevant to Claim 1) as controlling when an LED "illuminate[s]" and for how long, which could support a construction covering any form of on/off time modulation to create color effects ('140 Patent, col. 14:15-22).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term is most extensively described in the context of the AC-powered embodiment (relevant to Claim 18), where it refers to delaying a trigger pulse to a TRIAC relative to the AC zero-crossing ('140 Patent, col. 5:1-10). A party could argue this more specific technical disclosure limits the term's meaning across all claims.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement by Defendant's "retailers and customers" but does not plead specific underlying facts, such as referencing instructions in user manuals or marketing materials that would encourage infringing use (Compl. ¶18-19).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant was informed of a prior lawsuit against its customers (Kmart, Sears) for infringement of the ’140 Patent on or about May 27, 2015, giving Defendant actual knowledge of the patent and its alleged infringement (Compl. ¶21-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "setting a conduction angle," which is described in the patent with specific technical meaning for both AC and DC circuits, be construed to read on the accused products' method of generating "varying patterns of colors"? The outcome of this construction will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what is the actual circuit design of the accused products' "electronics module"? Discovery will be necessary to determine if it employs the two-switch architecture recited in Claim 1 or the AC series-circuit architecture of Claim 18, or an alternative design that falls outside the scope of the asserted claims.
- A central factual question for willfulness will be whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant received legally sufficient notice of the ’140 Patent and its alleged infringement through the notification regarding the prior lawsuit against its retail customers.