DCT

1:19-cv-01626

Epistar Corp v. LightInTheBox Holding Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01626, D. Del., 08/30/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant LITB, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and the other Defendants conduct business in the district by importing, marketing, offering for sale, and selling the accused products to customers in Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ LED filament light bulbs infringe seven U.S. patents related to the structure, fabrication, and performance of light-emitting diode devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns LED filament bulbs, which use series of small LEDs mounted on a transparent substrate to mimic the appearance and omnidirectional light output of traditional incandescent bulbs while offering greater energy efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that several of the patents-in-suit have been the subject of prior infringement lawsuits brought by Epistar against other companies in the LED lighting industry, including Epistar sues Adamax, Inc. (2016), Epistar sues All Star Lighting Supplies, Inc. (2017), Epistar sues V-TAC USA Corp. (2018), and Epistar sues Lowe's Companies, Inc. (2017). This history is asserted as a basis for Defendants' knowledge of the patents and potential willfulness.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-06-27 Earliest Priority Date for **’340** and **’455** Patents
2004-04-13 Earliest Priority Date for **’738** Patent
2005-01-25 Earliest Priority Date for **’068** Patent
2007-11-13 Earliest Priority Date for **’881** Patent
2009-02-10 ’068 Patent Issued
2009-07-14 ’738 Patent Issued
2012-05-29 Earliest Priority Date for **’022** and **’395** Patents
2012-08-14 ’881 Patent Issued
2015-06-23 ’022 Patent Issued
2016-01-01 Epistar sues Adamax, Inc. (alleged knowledge of ’068, ’738, ’881, ’022)
2017-01-01 Epistar sues All Star Lighting (alleged knowledge of ’068, ’738, ’022, ’340)
2017-01-01 Epistar sues Lowe's Companies, Inc. (alleged knowledge of ’738)
2017-05-30 ’340 Patent Issued
2018-01-01 Epistar sues V-TAC USA Corp. (alleged knowledge of ’068, ’738, ’881, ’022, ’340)
2019-03-05 ’455 Patent Issued
2019-04-02 ’395 Patent Issued
2019-08-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,560,738 - "Light-Emitting Diode Array Having An Adhesive Layer," issued July 14, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in manufacturing LED arrays, particularly with quaternary Al-In-Ga-P LEDs which typically require a conductive substrate. This architecture makes it difficult to form both P-type and N-type electrical contacts on the same side of the device, complicating the process of wiring multiple LEDs together in series or parallel. (’738 Patent, col. 1:29-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an LED array structure that uses an insulating transparent adhesive layer to bond the light-emitting semiconductor stack to a substrate. This insulating layer electrically isolates the LED stack from the underlying substrate (which can be conductive), allowing for the formation of trenches to separate individual LEDs and enabling both P-contacts and N-contacts to be fabricated on the same top surface. (’738 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-56).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for creating monolithically integrated arrays of LEDs on a variety of substrates, simplifying the manufacturing and electrical interconnection process for producing brighter, higher-voltage light sources from a single chip. (’738 Patent, col. 1:19-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶51).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • a substrate;
    • an adhesive layer formed on the substrate;
    • a plurality of electrically connected epitaxial light-emitting stack layers disposed on the adhesive layer;
    • each stack layer having a P-contact and an N-contact disposed on the same side of the stack layer.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,489,068 - "Light Emitting Device," issued February 10, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The efficiency of an LED is limited by a phenomenon called total internal reflection, where light traveling from the high-refractive-index semiconductor material to a low-refractive-index medium (like air) can become trapped inside the LED and eventually absorbed, generating heat instead of light. (’068 Patent, col. 1:24-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes creating a "diffusing surface" on the light-emitting stack. This surface, which can be a roughened or micro-structured interface, scatters light rays that strike it. This scattering randomizes the angles of the light rays, increasing the probability that they will strike the device's outer surface at an angle that allows them to escape, thereby enhancing the light extraction efficiency of the device. (’068 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-45).
  • Technical Importance: By providing a practical method to overcome total internal reflection, this technology directly addresses a fundamental limitation on LED brightness and overall efficiency. (’068 Patent, col. 2:5-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶57).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • a transparent substrate;
    • a light emitting stack having a first diffusing surface above the transparent substrate;
    • a transparent adhesive layer between the transparent substrate and the first diffusing surface;
    • wherein an index of refraction of the light emitting stack is different from that of the transparent adhesive layer.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,664,340 - "Light Emitting Device," issued May 30, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a light-emitting device with multiple electrode parts and a light-emitting unit. The invention focuses on the specific arrangement of these electrodes and the light-emitting unit, which partially or fully covers the electrodes, to create a device with an omnidirectional light pattern suitable for replacing traditional light bulbs. (’340 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:3-10).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶63).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, which are LED filament bulbs designed for omnidirectional light output, practice the claimed arrangement of electrodes and light-emitting units. (Compl. ¶¶62-63).

U.S. Patent No. 8,240,881 - "Light-Emitting Device Package," issued August 14, 2012

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an LED package where a light-emitting device on a transparent substrate is attached to a carrier at a non-zero angle, preferably around 90 degrees. This "lateral set package" configuration is designed to reduce light absorption within the device by directing light emission sideways, thereby increasing overall light efficiency. (’881 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶69).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products, which utilize linear LED filaments that emit light radially, are alleged to embody the angled, lateral-emission packaging structure claimed by the patent. (Compl. ¶¶68-69).

U.S. Patent No. 10,224,455 - "Light Emitting Device And Method Of Forming The Same," issued March 5, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to a light-emitting device structure designed to improve brightness. It involves a specific geometric relationship between the light-emitting layer and a transparent substrate, where the area of the substrate's second surface (opposite the emitting layer) is larger than the emitting layer by a specific ratio, which helps to reduce total internal reflection and improve light extraction. (’455 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶75).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products' physical construction, including the size and arrangement of their transparent substrates relative to the active LED areas, infringes upon the claimed structure. (Compl. ¶¶74-75).

U.S. Patent No. 9,065,022 - "Light Emitting Apparatus," issued June 23, 2015

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a light-emitting apparatus with one or more omni-directionally emitting LED chips on a transparent substrate, which is in turn coupled to a support mechanism at a specific angle. The design aims to provide uniform lighting intensity and flexible arrangements for applications seeking to mimic traditional lamps. (’022 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶81).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be light emitting apparatuses that use angled substrates and omnidirectional chips to achieve a filament-style light output, thereby infringing the patent. (Compl. ¶¶80-81).

U.S. Patent No. 10,247,395 - "Light Emitting Device," issued April 2, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a light-emitting device where an LED chip is disposed on a transparent substrate such that its light-emitting angle is wider than 180 degrees. This configuration allows light to penetrate into the substrate and emerge from another surface, enabling omnidirectional light distribution for creating uniform lighting performance. (’395 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products, which are designed to provide 360-degree illumination, are alleged to utilize LED chips with the claimed wide-angle emission characteristics. (Compl. ¶¶86-87).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are a range of GMY-branded LED filament light bulbs, identified by specific item and part numbers, sold by Defendants through online platforms. (Compl. ¶¶32, 37). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶20).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are designed as energy-efficient replacements for vintage-style incandescent Edison bulbs. (Compl. ¶37). They employ linear "filaments," which are transparent substrates populated with multiple LED chips, to replicate the aesthetic and omnidirectional light pattern of a traditional tungsten filament. (Compl. Figs. 18A, 20A). The complaint alleges these products are manufactured by Defendant GMY in China and imported and sold in the United States by Defendant LITB through websites including Lightinthebox.com, Amazon, eBay, and Newegg. (Compl. ¶¶17, 27, 32). The complaint provides screenshots showing the products for sale, including an image of "Energy Saving LED Chips" on a transparent filament. (Compl. Fig. 18A: Item No. 7159257). Another image shows a drop-down menu on GMY's website specifically identifying Delaware as a shipping destination. (Compl. Fig. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not attach, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories. (Compl. ¶¶51, 57). Therefore, the following summarizes the infringement allegations based on the complaint's narrative.

  • ’738 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly and indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’738 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶51-53). The narrative theory suggests that the LED filaments within the Accused Products constitute a "light-emitting diode array having an adhesive layer" as claimed. This implies the products contain a substrate, an adhesive layer for bonding, and multiple LED semiconductor stacks that are electrically connected with contacts formed on the same side.

  • ’068 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly and indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’068 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶57-59). The infringement theory centers on the claim that the Accused Products contain a "light emitting device" with a "diffusing surface." This suggests the products include a transparent substrate bonded to a light-emitting stack via an adhesive layer, and that an interface within this structure serves to scatter light and improve extraction efficiency, as required by the claims.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention for the ’738 Patent may be whether the linear series of LEDs on a single filament constitutes a "plurality of...stack layers" as contemplated by the patent, or if it is a different structure. For the ’068 Patent, a key question will be whether any interface within the accused filament bulbs can be properly characterized as a "diffusing surface," or if it is a conventional bonding surface whose light-scattering properties are merely incidental.
    • Technical Questions: A factual dispute for the ’068 Patent may arise over whether the refractive indices of the light-emitting stack and the adhesive layer in the Accused Products are "different" in the manner required to practice the invention. For the ’738 Patent, the electrical and physical properties of the "adhesive layer" will be a point of technical inquiry to determine if it functions as the claimed element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "adhesive layer" (from ’738 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The properties of this layer are central to the ’738 Patent's inventive concept. Whether this term is construed to require electrical insulation will be critical, as the accused products may use a layer that is primarily thermally conductive or has different electrical properties.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself only recites an "adhesive layer" without expressly requiring it to be insulating. (’738 Patent, col. 8:31).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the layer as an "insulating transparent adhesive layer." (’738 Patent, col. 2:49-50). The detailed description explains that this insulating property is what enables the novel same-side contact arrangement, suggesting insulation is an essential feature. (’738 Patent, col. 3:11-24).

  • Term: "first diffusing surface" (from ’068 Patent, claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term represents the core of the asserted invention in the ’068 Patent. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused devices contain a structure that meets the definition of a "diffusing surface."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is functional. A party could argue that any surface that scatters light to improve extraction efficiency meets the claim limitation, regardless of how it is formed.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the diffusing surface as a "rough surface" and links its function to its physical structure. (’068 Patent, col. 2:25). The patent figures depict this surface with distinct micro-scale roughness. (’068 Patent, Fig. 2, "S"). This may support a narrower construction limited to an intentionally roughened or structured surface, rather than any interface with incidental imperfections.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all patents-in-suit. It asserts that Defendants encourage infringement by providing support and instructions to customers on how to use the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶¶52, 58). It further alleges contributory infringement by selling the Accused Products, which are asserted to be a material part of the patented inventions and not suitable for substantial noninfringing use. (Compl. ¶¶53, 59).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit prior to the lawsuit or were willfully blind to their existence. (Compl. ¶43). This allegation is based on Epistar’s history of asserting the same patents in multiple prior lawsuits against other major players in the LED lighting market, such as Lowe's, Adamax, and All Star Lighting. (Compl. ¶¶44-47).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural characterization: Do the integrated LED "filaments" in the Accused Products contain the specific, discrete components as claimed in the patents—such as an "array" of distinct stacks separated by trenches (’738 Patent) and an intentionally engineered "diffusing surface" (’068 Patent)—or do the accused devices employ a fundamentally different physical architecture that falls outside the claims' scope?
  • A second central question will concern willfulness and pre-suit knowledge: Given Epistar's documented history of litigating these specific patents against other LED lighting companies, what evidence can Defendants provide to demonstrate a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity, or to otherwise rebut the allegation that they knew of and disregarded Epistar's patent rights?