Everlight Electronics Co Ltd v. Lumileds Holding BV

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. (Taiwan)
  • Defendant: Lumileds Holding B.V. (The Netherlands) and Lumileds, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Venable LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00119, D. Del., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Lumileds, LLC is a Delaware company, Defendant Lumileds Holding B.V. is a foreign corporation subject to suit in any district, and both Defendants are alleged to have transacted business and committed acts of infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive headlighting modules, manufactured abroad and imported into the U.S., are made using a process that infringes a U.S. patent on manufacturing methods for semiconductor light-emitting elements.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to the physical structure and manufacturing of high-power light-emitting diode (LED) chips, which are critical components in modern solid-state lighting for applications such as automotive and general illumination.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,554,126 - "Semiconductor Light-Emitting Element, Manufacturing Method and Mounting Method of the Same and Light-Emitting Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7554126, “Semiconductor Light-Emitting Element, Manufacturing Method and Mounting Method of the Same and Light-Emitting Device,” issued June 30, 2009.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section explains that as LED chips became larger and more powerful, conventional manufacturing and mounting techniques became problematic. Specifically, the small size of the n-electrode on large LED chips made it difficult to use low-cost, reliable bonding materials like solder, forcing manufacturers to use more complex and lower-yield "flip chip" bonding with bumps, which required high mounting precision (’126 Patent, col. 2:13-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a multi-layer electrode structure designed to overcome this bonding problem. It introduces a "first n-electrode" and a "first p-electrode" directly on the semiconductor layers. An insulating layer is then applied, and a "second n-electrode" and "second p-electrode" are formed on top of this insulator. Critically, the second n-electrode is designed to have a larger surface area than the first, creating a large, accessible pad suitable for soldering, while the second p-electrode is made smaller. This allows for a robust solder connection without shrinking the light-emitting area of the chip ’126 Patent, Abstract col. 7:5-24 Fig. 1
• Technical Importance: This method enabled the use of high-volume, low-cost mounting processes for large-format, high-power LEDs, facilitating their adoption in demanding applications like automotive headlights ’126 Patent, col. 2:42-50

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 9 Compl. ¶17
• The essential steps of independent claim 9 include:
  • Preparing a "bare light-emitting element" with specific n-type and p-type semiconductor layers, a "first n-electrode," and a "first p-electrode."
  • Forming a "first insulating layer" to insulate the first electrodes from each other.
  • Forming a "second n-electrode" on the insulating layer with an area larger than the joined face between the n-type semiconductor and the first n-electrode.
  • Forming a "second p-electrode" on the first p-electrode with an area smaller than the joined face between the n-type and p-type semiconductor layers.
• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more method claims," including claim 9, suggesting the potential assertion of other claims Compl. ¶19

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as "Lumileds LUXEON Go headlighting modules incorporated in various automobiles" Compl. ¶18

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these are light-emitting products that Defendants make, use, sell, or import into the United States Compl. ¶18 The core of the infringement allegation is that these products are "made by a process covered by one or more method claims of the ’126 Patent" and imported in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) Compl. ¶18 The complaint does not provide specific details about the structure or functionality of the accused modules beyond their identification as headlighting components. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is "demonstrated in the exemplary claim chart attached as Exhibit 2" Compl. ¶19 However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the public complaint. In its absence, the infringement theory is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

The complaint alleges on "information and belief" that Defendants' manufacturing process for the Accused Products practices all the steps of at least claim 9 of the ’126 Patent (Compl. ¶¶18-19). The primary infringement theory appears to be based on 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which prohibits the importation, sale, or use of a product made by a process patented in the United States Compl. ¶18 The central factual allegation is that the method used to manufacture the LUXEON Go modules includes preparing a bare LED element and subsequently forming first and second sets of n- and p-electrodes with the specific insulating layers and relative size characteristics as recited in claim 9.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A threshold question for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence, through discovery or reverse engineering, detailing the actual manufacturing process for the accused "LUXEON Go" modules and demonstrating that this process includes each step of the asserted method claim.
  • Technical Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused process results in the specific electrode structure claimed. For example, does the accused process form a second n-electrode that is demonstrably "larger" and a second p-electrode that is "smaller" than the respective "joined faces" as defined in the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the claim language, the following terms may become central to the case.

The Term: "an area larger than a joined face between the n-type semiconductor and the first n-electrode"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the core feature of the second n-electrode, which is its enlarged size for improved solderability. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement depends on a direct comparison between the area of the final bonding pad and the area of an underlying structural feature.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s purpose is to enable mounting with common materials like solder, which require a certain minimum area. A party could argue the term should be broadly construed to cover any structure where the second n-electrode is sufficiently large to achieve this stated objective ’126 Patent, col. 8:37-47
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "joined face" refers to a precise, measurable physical interface, and that the term requires a specific geometric relationship rather than a purely functional one. The patent describes the first n-electrode as covering "virtually the entire face of the area 12a," which could be used to argue for a specific baseline for the size comparison ’126 Patent, col. 7:37-40

The Term: "an area smaller than a joined face between the n-type semiconductor layer and the p-type semiconductor layer"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the relative size of the second p-electrode. Its construction is critical because a defendant could avoid infringement if its p-electrode does not meet this "smaller than" requirement relative to the specified "joined face."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The "joined face between the n-type semiconductor layer and the p-type semiconductor layer" could be argued to mean the entire p-n junction, which constitutes the light-emitting area ’126 Patent, col. 7:40-42 Under this reading, any p-electrode bonding pad smaller than the total light-emitting area would infringe.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states this size relationship is a consequence of the design where the second n-electrode is enlarged, suggesting a specific structural trade-off. A party might argue that "smaller than" implies a direct and necessary result of the patented method, not just any p-electrode that happens to be smaller than the p-n junction ’126 Patent, col. 8:9-12

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement and infringement via importation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), and does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement Compl. ¶18
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants have had "actual knowledge of the ’126 Patent and their infringement at least as of the service of this Complaint" Compl. ¶21 This allegation supports a claim for post-suit willfulness. The complaint makes no factual allegations of pre-suit knowledge but "reserves the right" to seek a willfulness finding if such facts are discovered Compl. ¶21

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

• A central issue will be one of evidence and proof: given that the complaint is based on "information and belief" and alleges infringement of a manufacturing method patent, can the Plaintiff obtain and present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the specific, multi-step process used to create the accused Lumileds modules practices every limitation of asserted claim 9?
• A key legal battle may be one of claim construction: the case could turn on the court's interpretation of the patent's relative size limitations. Specifically, whether the accused products’ electrode structures fall within the scope of an n-electrode "larger than a joined face" and a p-electrode "smaller than a joined face" will be a determinative question.