DCT

1:19-cv-00807

Lighting Science Group Corp v. Signify NV

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00807, D. Del., 05/17/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Signify North America Corporation because it is a Delaware corporation and thus resides in the district. Venue is alleged as proper for Signify N.V. as a foreign defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LED lighting products, including luminaires, smart bulbs, and the Philips Hue System, infringe seven patents related to LED packaging for high-temperature operation, low-profile light fixtures, and configurable sensor-based luminaires.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for managing heat in high-power LEDs and designing low-profile and environmentally-aware lighting systems, innovations central to the modern solid-state lighting market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action is a companion case to a concurrently filed ITC proceeding, In the Matter of Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components Thereof. An earlier version of this complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,672,518, which has since been removed. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, several of the asserted patents have been subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, which have resulted in the cancellation of some asserted and unasserted claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-05-05 Earliest Priority Date for '483, '053, '421 Patents
2006-08-22 U.S. Patent No. 7,095,053 Issued
2006-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,098,483 Issued
2009-01-26 Earliest Priority Date for '118 Patent
2009-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,528,421 Issued
2009-10-05 Earliest Priority Date for '968, '844 Patents
2011-05-15 Earliest Priority Date for '608 Patent
2012-06-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 Issued
2013-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,506,118 Issued
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,674,608 Issued
2015-03-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 Issued
2019-05-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,098,483 - "Light Emitting Diodes Packaged for High Temperature Operation"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that the operational temperature limits of then-prevalent plastic LED packages constrained the use of LEDs in higher-power applications, with industry preference for operational temperatures around 200° C far exceeding the ~80° C limit of plastic packages ('483 Patent, col. 1:20-37).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an LED package structure designed to withstand high temperatures by using a metal base for thermal coupling and an overlying ceramic layer. An LED die is mounted on the metal base, allowing heat to be efficiently conducted away through a thermal connection pad, while its electrodes are connected to electrical pads via insulated pathways ('483 Patent, col. 1:40-54; Fig. 1A). This construction, utilizing Low Temperature Co-fired Ceramic on Metal (LTCC-M) techniques, permits operation at temperatures as high as 250° C ('483 Patent, col. 2:51-55).
  • Technical Importance: This packaging approach enabled the use of high-power LEDs in demanding thermal environments, expanding their application beyond low-power indicators into general illumination.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 ('483 Patent, col. 10:1-12).
  • Claim 11 requires:
    • A packaged LED for high temperature operation.
    • A metal base including an underlying thermal connection pad and a pair of underlying electrical connection pads.
    • A layer of electrically insulating material overlying the metal base.
    • An LED mounted on the layer of electrically insulating material.
    • The LED includes a pair of electrodes electrically connected to the respective underlying electrical connection pads.
    • The LED is thermally coupled to the metal base by one or more thermal vias, and thermally coupled through the metal base to the thermal connection pad.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 14-16 and reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶22).

U.S. Patent No. 7,095,053 - "Light Emitting Diodes Packaged for High Temperature Operation"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that as applications for LEDs expanded, they became constrained by the thermal limits of their packaging, preventing use in higher-power or higher-temperature environments ('053 Patent, col. 1:20-33).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an LED package comprising a metal base with thermal and electrical connection pads, an overlying ceramic layer, and an LED die mounted on the metal base. This structure thermally couples the LED to the thermal pad through the metal base while electrically connecting its electrodes to the electrical pads, sometimes through insulated vias ('053 Patent, col. 1:40-54; Fig. 1). The use of ceramic layers allows for the integration of circuitry and helps distribute emitted light ('053 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
  • Technical Importance: By replacing conventional plastic packaging with a metal and ceramic structure, the invention allowed LEDs to operate reliably at much higher temperatures, facilitating their adoption in broader lighting applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 7, 14, and 22 ('053 Patent, col. 9:36-49; col. 10:4-10; col. 10:45-61).
  • Claim 7 requires:
    • A packaged LED for high temperature operation.
    • A metal base with underlying thermal and electrical connection pads.
    • A layer of ceramic overlying the metal base.
    • An LED with a pair of electrodes overlying the metal base.
    • The LED is thermally coupled through the metal base to the thermal connection pad.
    • At least one electrode is electrically connected to an underlying electrical connection pad via an insulated conducting via through the metal base.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 11, 26, and 29 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 7,528,421 - "Surface Mountable Light Emitting Diode Assemblies Packaged for High Temperature Operation"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes LED assemblies designed for high-temperature operation and efficient surface mounting on circuit boards. The invention uses a thermally conducting base, insulating layers that form a cavity for the LED die, and specific terminal arrangements to facilitate both heat dissipation and electrical connection (Compl. ¶31; '421 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 6, and 10 (all independent) are asserted (Compl. ¶34).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Philips Hue White 9.5W Smart LED Light Bulb and a list of over twenty other Philips-branded LED replacement bulbs of infringement (Compl. ¶33, ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 8,506,118 - "Light Fixture and Associated LED Board and Monolithic Optic"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to an LED-based street light fixture designed to produce a specific (e.g., Type-III) light distribution pattern. It discloses an LED board with LEDs arranged in specific groups and a corresponding monolithic optic with a plurality of lenses to control the light output (Compl. ¶38; '118 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 15, and 17 (all independent) are asserted (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Signify Streetworks CRTK-R Caretaker LED Roadway Luminaire of infringement (Compl. ¶40). It also accuses the Philips 14W Non-Dimmable A19 LED Light Bulb as a representative product (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. 8,674,608 - "Configurable Environmental Condition Sensing Luminaire, System and Associated Methods"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a "smart" luminaire containing a light source, sensors (e.g., motion, ambient light), and a controller. The controller analyzes sensor data and adjusts the light source based on pre-defined rules, and the luminaire can communicate with other devices over a network (Compl. ¶45; '608 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1, 6, 12, 16, 19, 24, 28, and 37 (all independent) are asserted (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Philips Hue System of infringement (Compl. ¶47).

U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 - "Low Profile Light"

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a low-profile luminaire with a specific heat spreader and heat sink configuration designed to fit within standard electrical junction boxes or can light fixtures. A key feature is a low height-to-diameter ratio (H/D ≤ 0.25) enabling retrofit applications (Compl. ¶51; '968 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 6 (dependent) is asserted (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Philips 13W LED Downlight 4", 5", or 6" Surface Mounted Fixture of infringement (Compl. ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 - "Low Profile Light and Accessory Kit for the Same"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the '968 patent and covers a low-profile luminaire, as well as an accessory kit for its installation. The kit may include pre-wired jumpers with different connectors (e.g., an Edison base) to facilitate retrofitting into various existing fixtures (Compl. ¶57; '844 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 4 (dependent) is asserted (Compl. ¶60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Philips 13W (75W Equivalent) LED Downlight 4", 5", or 6" Surface Mounted Fixture of infringement (Compl. ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names several categories of accused products, including the Philips LUMEC Roadfocus LED Luminaire, the Philips Hue System, Philips Hue White and other smart/dimmable bulbs, numerous standard Philips LED replacement bulbs, the Signify Streetworks LED Roadway Luminaire, and Philips LED Downlight fixtures (Compl. ¶21, ¶33, ¶37, ¶40, ¶47, ¶53, ¶59).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products represent a broad range of Signify's (formerly Philips Lighting) LED offerings. They include high-output outdoor luminaires for street and area lighting, consumer-grade smart lighting systems controllable via a network, and common LED bulbs and downlights designed to replace legacy lighting technologies (Compl. ¶21, ¶33, ¶47, ¶53). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of these products but asserts they embody the patented technologies (Compl. ¶22, ¶28, ¶34, ¶41, ¶48, ¶54, ¶60). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'483 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Philips LUMEC Roadfocus LED Luminaire directly infringes at least claims 11 and 14-16 of the '483 patent, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶21, ¶22). The complaint states that the accused products "satisfy all claim limitations" of the asserted claims at the time of importation into the United States (Compl. ¶22). While the complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart exhibit, the exhibit itself is not provided in the pleading, precluding a detailed element-by-element analysis at this stage (Compl. ¶24). The core narrative theory is that the accused luminaire is constructed with an LED package that utilizes the claimed high-temperature operational features.

'053 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the same Philips LUMEC Roadfocus LED Luminaire directly infringes at least claims 7, 11, 14, 22, 26, and 29 of the '053 patent (Compl. ¶27, ¶28). The theory of infringement is that Signify imports, sells for importation, or sells the accused products after importation, and that these products meet all limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶28). As with the '483 patent, the complaint incorporates a claim chart by reference but does not include it, preventing a specific limitation-by-limitation review (Compl. ¶30). The allegation centers on the product's use of an LED package designed for high-temperature operation consistent with the patent's claims.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: For the '483 and '053 patents, a potential question is whether the structures within the accused commercial "Luminaire" (a complete light fixture) meet the limitations of claims directed to a "packaged LED" (a component-level invention). The analysis may depend on whether the defendant's product contains discrete LED packages that map onto the claim elements or integrates the LED die in a way that differs from the claimed structure.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be the specific materials and construction of the accused products. For instance, does the accused luminaire contain a component that functions as a "metal base" with an "overlying" "layer of ceramic" as defined by the patents, which describe an LTCC-M manufacturing context? The complaint does not provide the teardown analyses or imaging it references, leaving open the factual question of how the accused products are actually constructed (Compl. ¶37, ¶44).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "a metal base"

  • (from '483 claim 11 and '053 claim 7)
  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed structure for heat dissipation. The patents describe this element as the substrate upon which the LED die and ceramic layers are placed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the entire housing of the accused luminaire could be considered the "metal base," or if the claim requires a specific component-level metal substrate as depicted in the patent figures.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not narrowly limit the size or form of the "metal base," referring to it as including underlying connection pads ('053 Patent, col. 9:38-40). This might support an argument that any metal structure performing this function could qualify.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently depict the "metal base" as a discrete component of a single packaged LED assembly, for example showing it as a layer (11) upon which the LED die (10) and ceramic layers (17) are built ('053 Patent, Fig. 1A; col. 2:42-44). The detailed description discusses using specific materials like copper/molybdenum/copper (CMC) for the base, suggesting a more specialized structure than a generic housing ('053 Patent, col. 3:14-15).

The Term: "a layer of ceramic overlying the metal base"

  • (from '053 claim 7)
  • Context and Importance: This element provides electrical insulation, routing for circuitry, and can form a reflective cavity around the LED. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product contains a material that is structurally and functionally equivalent to the "layer of ceramic" described in the patent, which is heavily contextualized by the LTCC-M process.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is simple, requiring only "a layer of ceramic." This could be argued to encompass any ceramic material layered on top of the base structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly links the ceramic layer to the "low temperature co-fired ceramic on metal technique (LTCC-M)" ('053 Patent, col. 2:51-55). Embodiments show this layer as being composed of multiple sub-layers (17A, 17B, etc.) that can incorporate buried circuit components ('053 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 3:25-34). This context may support a narrower construction requiring a structure made with or similar to LTCC-M techniques, rather than any generic ceramic insulator.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is that Defendants encourage others (e.g., distributors, end-users) to sell, use, or import the accused products, knowing these actions constitute infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶29, ¶35, ¶42, ¶49, ¶55, ¶61).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants having had "knowledge of, or have been willfully blind toward, the Asserted Patents and the infringement" as of the filing of the complaint or earlier (Compl. ¶23, ¶29, ¶35, ¶42, ¶49, ¶55, ¶61).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the accused commercial products, which range from complex luminaires to simple replacement bulbs, contain the specific layered metal-base and ceramic-layer structures required by the high-temperature packaging patents ('483, '053, '421), or is there a fundamental mismatch between the component-level invention claimed and the system-level products accused?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technological mapping: For the "smart" lighting patent ('608), what specific evidence will show that the Philips Hue System's software and hardware architecture performs the sensing, controlling, and communication methods as recited in the asserted claims? Similarly, for the low-profile patents ('968, '844), the dispute will likely center on precise dimensional measurements of the accused downlights to determine if they meet the critical height-to-diameter ratio claimed.
  • A central question of claim scope will be whether the features of the patents, developed and described in the context of specific manufacturing techniques like LTCC-M for the packaging patents or for specific light distribution patterns in the fixture patent ('118), can be construed broadly enough to read on the diverse array of mass-market products manufactured by the Defendant.