DCT

1:18-cv-01732

Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. OSRAM Sylvania Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01732, D. Del., 11/02/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper because Defendants are foreign entities or are incorporated in Delaware, have transacted business in the district, and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s light-emitting diode (LED) products infringe a portfolio of fourteen patents related to LED device structure, manufacturing methods, and optical performance features.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns fundamental aspects of LED design and fabrication, a critical field for modern lighting, consumer electronics, automotive, and display industries.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of several asserted patents or their families due to citations made during the prosecution of Defendants' own patent applications, a factor central to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-01-29 U.S. Patent 6,325,524 Priority Date
2001-12-04 U.S. Patent 6,325,524 Issued
2003-03-07 U.S. Patent 6,806,658 Priority Date
2003-09-12 U.S. Patent 7,145,182 Priority Date
2004-03-11 U.S. Patent 7,239,080 Priority Date
2004-04-02 U.S. Patent 7,488,990 Priority Date
2004-10-19 U.S. Patent 6,806,658 Issued
2005-03-07 U.S. Patent 7,115,428 Priority Date
2005-08-19 U.S. Patent 7,519,287 Priority Date
2006-10-03 U.S. Patent 7,115,428 Issued
2006-12-05 U.S. Patent 7,145,182 Issued
2007-03-09 U.S. Patent 7,470,936 Priority Date
2007-07-03 U.S. Patent 7,239,080 Issued
2008-03-28 U.S. Patent 7,847,300 Priority Date
2008-12-30 U.S. Patent 7,470,936 Issued
2009-01-23 U.S. Patent 8,034,644 Priority Date
2009-02-10 U.S. Patent 7,488,990 Issued
2009-04-14 U.S. Patent 7,519,287 Issued
2009-07-28 U.S. Patent 9,887,338 Priority Date
2010-12-07 U.S. Patent 7,847,300 Issued
2011-02-23 U.S. Patent 9,209,373 Priority Date
2011-03-14 U.S. Patent 9,882,094 Priority Date
2011-03-16 U.S. Patent 8,405,181 Priority Date
2011-10-11 U.S. Patent 8,034,644 Issued
2013-03-26 U.S. Patent 8,405,181 Issued
2015-12-08 U.S. Patent 9,209,373 Issued
2018-01-30 U.S. Patent 9,882,094 Issued
2018-02-06 U.S. Patent 9,887,338 Issued
2018-11-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent 6,325,524, SOLID STATE BASED ILLUMINATION SOURCE FOR A PROJECTION DISPLAY, Issued December 4, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In conventional LED arrays, a "significant fraction of the light generated...is lost" because light emitted from the side facets of the LEDs becomes trapped between neighboring LEDs or is emitted outside the acceptance angle of the collimating optics (Compl. ¶23; ’524 Patent, col. 1:31-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a "plurality of reflectors" to capture light leaving the side surfaces of the LEDs and redirect it into the optical system's acceptance angle. The patent discloses several embodiments for these reflectors, including making the heat sink non-planar with angled facets, placing separate reflective objects between the LEDs, or filling the space between LEDs with a medium containing scattering particles (Compl. ¶26-29; ’524 Patent, col. 2:43-63, col. 3:4-14).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve the overall light output and efficiency of LED arrays, a key obstacle to their adoption in high-brightness applications like projectors (Compl. ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • A light source for an optical system with a predetermined acceptance angle.
    • A plurality of LEDs mounted on a reflective base.
    • Each LED generates light leaving via a top, bottom, and one or more side surfaces.
    • The reflective base has a reflective surface in contact with the bottom surface of each LED.
    • A plurality of reflectors for reflecting light from the side surfaces into the acceptance angle, with at least one reflector located between two LEDs.

U.S. Patent 6,806,658, METHOD FOR MAKING AN LED, Issued October 19, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Prior art methods for manufacturing white LEDs, which involve mixing phosphor particles in a liquid epoxy, suffered from "poor yield due to uneven phosphor dispersion" because the dense phosphor particles would settle during the slow heat-curing process. The epoxy would also shrink during curing (Compl. ¶46; ’658 Patent, col. 1:31-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses using a "UV cured epoxy that sets in a very short period of time together with a thixotropic agent that retards the sedimentation of the phosphor particles." By curing the epoxy rapidly with UV light, the phosphor particles are "frozen" in place before they have time to settle, ensuring a more uniform dispersion and consistent color output (Compl. ¶47; ’658 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
  • Technical Importance: This manufacturing method improves the yield, consistency, and color quality of phosphor-converted LEDs, which are foundational to modern solid-state white lighting (Compl. ¶46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • A light source comprising a light emitter (first wavelength) and a phosphor layer.
    • The phosphor layer converts a portion of the light to a second wavelength.
    • The phosphor layer comprises a powdered phosphor suspended in a photo-curable medium that sets upon exposure to light of a curing wavelength.
    • The photo-curable medium sets in a time less than that required for a change in concentration of the phosphor in the layer over the LED of more than 0.5 percent.

U.S. Patent 7,115,428, METHOD FOR FABRICATING LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICES UTILIZING A PHOTO-CURABLE EPOXY, Issued October 3, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses problems in LED manufacturing where a viscous epoxy-phosphor mixture can "slump" or settle unevenly during oven curing, leading to inconsistent light output (Compl. ¶64-65; ’428 Patent, col. 2:44-48). The solution is a method that uses a mixture of photocurable epoxy and phosphor particles, which is dispensed and then rapidly cured with light in a time period "less than the time period in which the phosphor particles settle" (Compl. ¶67; ’428 Patent, col. 1:52-57).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: The manufacturing method for Defendant's Duris S5 White LED products is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶70-71).

U.S. Patent 7,145,182, INTEGRATED EMITTER DEVICES HAVING BEAM DIVERGENCE REDUCING ENCAPSULATION LAYER, Issued December 5, 2006

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inaccuracies and high costs of prior art LED packaging that involved machining recesses into a printed circuit board (Compl. ¶84; ’182 Patent, col. 1:27-45). The patented solution involves a method to "form cups of epoxy or other suitable material" directly on a flat substrate using transfer molding, into which an emitter is placed and then encapsulated with a lens, improving bonding and enabling a wider range of viewing angles (Compl. ¶85-86; ’182 Patent, col. 1:51-64).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶88).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's White LED LW A673-P1S1-5K8L-Z and similar products are alleged to be integrated optical emitter devices with a molded cup and a shaped encapsulation layer that reduces beam divergence (Compl. ¶89, ¶92-95).

U.S. Patent 7,239,080, LED DISPLAY WITH OVERLAY, Issued July 3, 2007

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses color consistency problems in multi-LED devices where variations in cavity dimensions lead to inconsistent phosphor amounts and color output (Compl. ¶105-106; ’080 Patent, col. 2:30-33). The solution is to use a separate "fluorescent material overlay" with a substantially consistent thickness placed over the LED cavities, ensuring that the amount of light conversion is independent of the cavity volume below (Compl. ¶107-108; ’080 Patent, col. 3:65-col. 4:4).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶111).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's GD DASPA2.14 is alleged to be an LED display device with a cavity filled by an encapsulant and a separate "remote phosphor" overlay at the top end of the cavity (Compl. ¶112, ¶114, ¶117).

U.S. Patent 7,470,936, LIGHT EMITTING DIODE WITH A STEP SECTION BETWEEN THE BASE AND THE LENS OF THE DIODE, Issued December 30, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of injecting a precise amount of black resin material between LEDs on a display without the resin overflowing and contacting the lens, which reduces contrast and narrows the viewing angle (Compl. ¶129, ¶131; ’936 Patent, col. 1:36-50). The solution is a "step section" around the outside of the lens that projects from the base, preventing the resin from contacting the lens and defining the correct fill height (Compl. ¶133; ’936 Patent, col. 2:38-44).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶137).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's SFH 4059SR infrared emitter is alleged to have a base, a hemispherical lens, and a "step section" disposed between the base and the lens (Compl. ¶138-143).

U.S. Patent 7,488,990, USING MULTIPLE TYPES OF PHOSPHOR IN COMBINATION WITH A LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE, Issued February 10, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the limited color spectrum achievable with a blue LED and a single-color phosphor, noting that colors like "yellowish green and greenish-white" cannot be produced (Compl. ¶153; ’990 Patent, col. 1:25-29). The solution is to use "multiple types of phosphor in combination with a light emitting device," such as a mixture of green and yellow phosphors, to obtain a wider variety of colors (Compl. ¶154-155; ’990 Patent, col. 2:23-25).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶157).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's "Color on Demand" technology is alleged to use a blue LED to excite a mix of red, yellow, or green phosphors in an encapsulation material to produce customer-specific colors (Compl. ¶158, ¶161-162).

U.S. Patent 7,519,287, ELECTRONIC FLASH, IMAGING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A FLASH OF LIGHT HAVING A RECTANGULAR RADIATION PATTERN, Issued April 14, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of conventional LED flashes, which produce a round or oval radiation pattern, when used with rectangular camera image sensors, as a significant portion of light falls outside the imaging area (Compl. ¶174-175; ’287 Patent, col. 1:32-38). The solution is to use a "diffractive optical element" to shape the light from the LED into a rectangular radiation pattern that more closely matches the sensor's field of view (Compl. ¶177; ’287 Patent, col. 1:49-51).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶179).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's OSLUX LED, used as a flash in smart-phones, is alleged to use a diffractive optical element to produce a "uniform rectangular pattern" of illumination (Compl. ¶180, ¶182).

U.S. Patent 7,847,300, LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE PACKAGE, Issued December 7, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses a problem in small surface-mount device (SMD) LED packages where bending the electrode lead can leave a clearance between the electrode pad and the housing, compromising reliability (Compl. ¶196; ’300 Patent, col. 1:30-40). The solution is an LED package design where a portion of the housing wall is made thicker to cover the electrode lead, preventing the occurrence of a clearance (Compl. ¶198; ’300 Patent, col. 2:58-63).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶200).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's Micro SIDELED product is alleged to have a housing wall with a first portion and a thicker second portion that covers the electrode lead (Compl. ¶201, ¶205).

U.S. Patent 8,034,644, LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE, Issued October 11, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the trade-off between through-the-wave (TTW) and surface-mount technology (SMT) LEDs, where TTW devices have better optical performance but SMT devices offer manufacturing benefits (Compl. ¶216; ’644 Patent, col. 1:9-14). The solution is a hybrid device and manufacturing method that creates an SMT package which retains the advantageous light characteristics of a TTW device (Compl. ¶217-219; ’644 Patent, col. 1:63-65).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 14 is asserted (Compl. ¶221).
  • Accused Features: The manufacturing method for Defendant's SFH 4356 IR LED is alleged to infringe, involving fabricating lines of leads, connecting them with a rail, and encapsulating them into a single unit (Compl. ¶222-229).

U.S. Patent 8,405,181, HIGH BRIGHTNESS AND HIGH CONTRAST PLASTIC LEADED CHIP CARRIER LED, Issued March 26, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that available Plastic Leaded Chip Carrier (PLCC) packages could not simultaneously provide both high contrast and high brightness (Compl. ¶240; ’181 Patent, col. 1:31-41). The solution is a PLCC package design where the lead frame is incorporated into the interior walls of the reflector cup, enhancing reflectivity without an extra manufacturing step, thereby allowing for a dark (high contrast) housing while maintaining brightness (Compl. ¶242; ’181 Patent, col. 4:2-6).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶244).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's IR Emitter Series is alleged to be a PLCC package where the wall of the reflector cup has a continuous circumference comprising both a portion of the plastic housing and a portion of the lead frame (Compl. ¶245, ¶249).

U.S. Patent 9,209,373, HIGH POWER PLASTIC LEADED CHIP CARRIER WITH INTEGRATED METAL REFLECTOR CUP AND DIRECT HEAT SINK, Issued December 8, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the cost, complexity, and limited heat dissipation of LED packages that use a separate heat sink slug distinct from the lead frame (Compl. ¶261; ’373 Patent, col. 1:28-47). The solution is a PLCC package with a plastic molded lead frame where features like a metal reflector cup and a direct heat sink are integrated into the lead frame itself, simplifying manufacturing and improving thermal performance (Compl. ¶262-263).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶265).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's DURIS E5 is alleged to be a package with a lead frame having a first and second metal lead, anchorage holes, and an integrated heat sink physically separated from the leads (Compl. ¶266-271).

U.S. Patent 9,882,094, LIGHT SOURCE WITH INNER AND OUTER BODIES COMPRISING THREE DIFFERENT ENCAPSULANTS, Issued January 30, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses reliability and contrast issues for small, high-brightness LEDs used in outdoor infotainment displays (Compl. ¶284-287). The solution is a light-emitting device with an "inner reflective body" and an "outer non-reflective body" to improve contrast, with reliability enhanced by using interlocking structures and geometries between the bodies and the lead frame (Compl. ¶288-291; ’094 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶293).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's OSLON Black Flat is alleged to comprise a first encapsulant (inner reflective body), a second encapsulant (outer non-reflective body), and a third encapsulant for the light source die itself (Compl. ¶294, ¶297, ¶300-301).

U.S. Patent 9,887,338, LIGHT EMITTING DIODE DEVICE, Issued February 6, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of impeded heat flow in LED packages caused by multiple thermal interfaces and layers of dissimilar materials, particularly between the LED, a heat slug, and a circuit board (Compl. ¶311-312; ’338 Patent, col. 1:20-38). The solution is an LED device mounted on a substrate with a solder-filled via that acts as a "heat plug," creating a direct, low-resistance thermal path and reducing the number of interfaces (Compl. ¶313, ¶315; ’338 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶320).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's OSLON LX ECE is alleged to be an electronic assembly comprising an LED with a solderable metallic surface, a printed circuit board with a via, and a heat sink, where the solderable surface is positioned across the via to thermally connect to the heat sink (Compl. ¶321-326).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names numerous accused product families, with specific non-limiting examples for each patent. For the '524 Patent, the exemplary product is the OSTAR Headlamp Pro (Compl. ¶31). For the '658 Patent, the exemplary product is the LZ1-00CW02 LED emitter (Compl. ¶49).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The OSTAR Headlamp Pro is an LED array product used in applications such as automotive lighting (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges it comprises multiple LEDs on a base with structures between them that function as reflectors (Compl. ¶33-34). The complaint provides an annotated diagram of the product, identifying the "plurality of reflectors" and "side surfaces" of the LEDs (Compl. ¶34, p. 10).
  • The LZ1-00CW02 is a high-flux-density white LED emitter used in applications requiring high brightness from a small package (Compl. ¶51). The complaint alleges its "patent-pending thermally insulated phosphor layer" is comprised of a powdered phosphor suspended in a photo-curable medium that is rapidly set, consistent with the claims of the '658 Patent (Compl. ¶51, ¶53). An annotated product image identifies the "Light emitting chip...covered with a phosphor layer" (Compl. ¶51, p. 14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent 6,325,524 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of LEDs mounted on a reflective base... Defendant's OSTAR Headlamp Pro comprises a plurality of LEDs mounted on a reflective base. ¶33 col. 1:60-61
each of said LEDs generating light that leaves that LED via a top surface, a bottom surface, and one or more side surfaces of said LED... The OSTAR Headlamp Pro's LEDs generate light that leaves via a top surface, a bottom surface, and one or more side surfaces. ¶33 col. 1:61-63
said reflective base having a reflective surface in contact with said bottom surface of each of said LEDs... The product's reflective base has a reflective surface in contact with the bottom surface of each of the LEDs. ¶33 col. 1:63-65
a plurality of reflectors for reflecting light leaving said side surfaces of said LEDs into said acceptance angle of said optical system... The OSTAR Headlamp Pro comprises a plurality of reflectors for reflecting light from the side surfaces of the LEDs. ¶34 col. 1:65-67
at least one of said reflectors being located between two of said LEDs. At least one of the alleged reflectors is located between two of the LEDs. ¶34 col. 2:7-8

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention may be the definition of "reflectors." The court may need to determine if the structures in the accused device, which may be part of the substrate or LED packaging, have the primary function of reflecting light from the side surfaces into the optical system's acceptance angle, as required by the claim, or if any incidental reflection meets this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the product's reflectors direct light "into said acceptance angle" (Compl. ¶34), which is a functional requirement. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused structures actually perform this specific optical function, as opposed to other functions such as physical separation or heat management.

U.S. Patent 6,806,658 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A light source comprising: a light emitter that emits light of a first wavelength; Defendant's LZ1-00CW02 comprises a light emitter that emits light of a first wavelength. ¶50 col. 3:45-46
and a phosphor layer covering said light emitter...converting a portion of said light emitter of said first wavelength to light of a second wavelength, The product comprises a phosphor layer covering the light emitter which converts a portion of the light. ¶51-52 col. 3:47-49
wherein, said phosphor layer comprises a powdered phosphor suspended in a photo-curable medium that sets upon exposure to light of a curing wavelength, The product's phosphor layer allegedly comprises a powdered phosphor suspended in a photo-curable medium that sets upon exposure to light of a curing wavelength. ¶53 col. 3:50-53
wherein said photo-curable medium sets in a time less than that required for a change in concentration of said phosphor in said phosphor layer over said LED of more than 0.5 percent. The product's photo-curable medium allegedly sets in a time less than that required for a >0.5% change in phosphor concentration over the LED. ¶54 col. 4:24-28

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The final limitation of claim 1—that the medium sets faster than the time required for a >0.5% change in phosphor concentration—is a highly specific, quantitative, and comparative requirement related to the manufacturing process. The complaint alleges this in a conclusory manner (Compl. ¶54). A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence, likely from reverse engineering or discovery into Defendant's confidential manufacturing processes, to prove this functional limitation is met.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’524 Patent:

  • The Term: "plurality of reflectors"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central novel element of the invention. The scope of "reflectors" will determine whether various structures within an LED package—such as substrate walls, scattering particles, or adjacent components—constitute infringing structures. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive of infringement for the '524 patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses multiple, distinct embodiments, including "a plurality of reflecting facets" which can be part of the base or "separate objects," as well as "scattering centers located between the LEDs" (’524 Patent, col. 2:3-8). This suggests the term is not limited to a single structural form.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the reflectors to perform the function of "reflecting light...into said acceptance angle." Defendant may argue that this functional language limits the term to structures designed for that specific purpose, potentially excluding structures where such reflection is merely an incidental property.

For the ’658 Patent:

  • The Term: "sets in a time less than that required for a change in concentration of said phosphor...of more than 0.5 percent"
  • Context and Importance: This functional limitation defines the invention's core advantage over prior art slow-curing methods. Proving infringement requires a technical analysis of both the accused product's curing time and its phosphor sedimentation rate. The construction of this term, particularly how the "time required for a change in concentration" is measured, will be critical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background section extensively discusses the problem of phosphor particles settling in slow, heat-cured epoxy, establishing the context for a fast-setting solution (’658 Patent, col. 1:31-41). This may support interpreting the claim language functionally to capture any process that solves this problem.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific numerical value "0.5 percent" appears only in the claims. A defendant may argue that this creates a precise, non-negotiable standard that must be proven and cannot be broadened by reference to the specification's more general description of the problem.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement. It states that Defendants provide "data sheets, technical guides, demonstrations, software and hardware specifications, installation guides, and other forms of support" that allegedly instruct and encourage customers and end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶41, ¶59).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. For many, the allegation is based on knowledge of the patent as of the service of the complaint (e.g., Compl. ¶55). For the '524 Patent, however, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on the fact that the prosecution of "OSRAM's German patent application DE102007043904A1 cites European Patent Application EP1024398A1 of the '524 Patent family" (Compl. ¶36-37). Similar allegations are made for the '080, '990, '287, '181, and '373 patents.

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof for functional claims: For the manufacturing-related patents ('658, '428, '644), which claim processes defined by functional outcomes (e.g., curing faster than phosphor settles by a specific percentage), a key question will be whether the plaintiff can obtain and present sufficient evidence from discovery to demonstrate that the defendant's proprietary, high-volume manufacturing methods meet these precise technical requirements.
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope and technological evolution: The case will test whether claim terms from patents filed over a nearly 20-year span, drafted to solve problems in earlier-generation LEDs (e.g., for "projection displays"), can be construed to cover the structures and features of modern, highly integrated LED components used in different end markets like automotive lighting and consumer electronics.
  • A significant legal question for damages will be one of pre-suit knowledge for willfulness: The allegations of willfulness are partly based on citations to the asserted patent families in the defendant's own foreign patent prosecution history. The court will likely need to address whether such a reference in an administrative proceeding constitutes the "knowledge of the patent" and "objective recklessness" required to support a finding of willful infringement under U.S. law.