DCT

1:24-cv-02401

Signify Holding BV v. Keystone Tech LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02401, N.D. Ga., 06/27/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant conducts regular business in the district, including through an Atlanta-based fulfillment center, and commits the alleged acts of infringement by selling accused products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s various LED lighting products infringe nine patents related to LED driver circuitry, downlight optical and thermal structures, and systems for configuring lumen output and color temperature.
  • Technical Context: The dispute involves foundational technologies in the solid-state lighting market, which has largely displaced legacy incandescent and fluorescent lighting due to superior energy efficiency and product lifespan.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant received pre-suit notice of its alleged infringement of seven of the nine patents-in-suit, with the earliest notice dating to February 14, 2020. These allegations of long-standing notice form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-03-10 ’756 Patent Priority Date
2008-05-22 ’577 Patent Priority Date
2008-09-02 ’328 Patent Priority Date
2010-07-12 ’253 Patent Priority Date
2011-11-22 ’577 Patent Issue Date
2011-12-06 ’328 Patent Issue Date
2012-09-25 ’756 Patent Issue Date
2013-09-24 ’357 Patent Priority Date
2016-02-19 ’300, ’682, ’350, ’588 Patents Priority Date
2016-05-24 ’357 Patent Issue Date
2017-07-18 ’253 Patent Issue Date
2017-11-14 ’350 Patent Issue Date
2018-10-30 ’300 Patent Issue Date
2019-12-10 ’682 Patent Issue Date
2020-02-14 Alleged notice of infringement for ’577 and ’357 Patents
2021-06-28 Alleged notice of infringement for ’756, ’300, and ’350 Patents
2022-08-09 ’588 Patent Issue Date
2024-05-29 Alleged notice of infringement for ’328, ’253, and ’682 Patents
2024-06-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,063,577 - Method and a Driver Circuit for LED Operation

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,063,577, “Method and a Driver Circuit for LED Operation,” issued November 22, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes various known switched-mode power supplies for driving LEDs, implicitly addressing the general engineering challenge of creating efficient, reliable, and cost-effective driver circuits for solid-state lighting applications (’577 Patent, col. 1:11-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a specific type of driver circuit known as a resonant converter. It generates an alternating current using a resonant capacitor in series with a transformer, which is then rectified and buffered by an inductor to produce a “substantially constant” DC current to power the LEDs (’577 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-31). The power delivered to the LEDs is controlled by adjusting the frequency of the alternating current (’577 Patent, col. 2:5-8).
  • Technical Importance: Resonant converter topologies are used to achieve high energy efficiency by enabling "soft switching" (e.g., zero voltage switching), which minimizes power losses that occur during the rapid on/off cycles in conventional power supplies (’577 Patent, col. 2:57-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
  • Claim 1 requires a driver circuit comprising:
    • A set of input terminals for a supply voltage.
    • A resonant capacitor.
    • A transformer with its primary winding and the resonant capacitor coupled in series to the input terminals.
    • A rectifier means coupled to the transformer’s secondary winding.
    • An output circuit with buffer circuitry, where the buffer circuitry includes an inductor connected in series with the output terminals.
    • The value of the inductor is selected to provide a substantially constant current through the LED.

U.S. Patent No. 8,070,328 - LED Downlight

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,070,328, “LED Downlight,” issued December 6, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to create an LED downlight that offers a "clear cutoff with minimal glare," addressing the optical challenges of using powerful, point-source LEDs for comfortable general illumination (’328 Patent, col. 1:49-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a fixture with a multi-part optical system. An array of LEDs is positioned above a "multi-piece reflector assembly." This assembly consists of a first upper reflector and a second lower reflector that together define a light exit path. A diffuser is positioned between the two reflectors to mix and soften the light before it exits the fixture, thereby controlling glare and shaping the beam (’328 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-13).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a method for managing the harsh, directional output of LEDs, making them more suitable for aesthetically sensitive applications like architectural and residential downlighting (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶66).
  • Claim 1 requires an LED downlight fixture comprising:
    • An array of LEDs in thermal connectivity with a heatsink.
    • The LED array is positioned adjacent a first aperture of a multi-piece reflector assembly.
    • The assembly includes a first reflector with a first (upper) aperture and a larger, opposed second (lower) aperture.
    • The assembly also includes a second reflector positioned adjacent to the first reflector's second aperture, defining a light exit passageway.
    • A diffuser is positioned "proximal to and extending across" both the second aperture of the first reflector and the first aperture of the second reflector.

U.S. Patent No. 8,272,756 - LED-Based Lighting System and Method

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,272,756, “LED-Based Lighting System and Method,” issued September 25, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a lighting system built around an "integrated member," such as an aluminum extrusion, that serves multiple functions. It includes a channel with a flat surface for mounting LEDs and contoured reflective surfaces to direct light, as well as integrated protrusions on its back side that act as a heat sink to dissipate thermal energy (Compl. ¶20, ¶85).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Keystone’s Direct Drive HID Replacement LED Lamps, which feature an elongated body with channels for LEDs and external fins, infringe the ’756 Patent (Compl. ¶32, ¶¶87-89).

U.S. Patent No. 9,709,253 - Light Emitting Diode Recessed Light Fixture

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,709,253, “Light Emitting Diode Recessed Light Fixture,” issued July 18, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a self-contained downlight module designed to retrofit into existing recessed ceiling housings. The invention includes an LED light source, a heat sink, a driver, and an adapter that has an Edison screw-in plug on one end and a plug connector on the other, facilitating a "plug-and-play" installation into a standard Edison socket (Compl. ¶21, ¶101).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶99).
  • Accused Features: The Aviva Retrofit Downlights are accused of infringement. The complaint points to the product's integrated LED, heat sink, and its adapter with an Edison plug for installation into existing housings (Compl. ¶33, ¶¶102-106).

U.S. Patent No. 9,351,357 - Light Emitting Diode Lamp and Driver

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,351,357, “Light Emitting Diode Lamp and Driver,” issued May 24, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a light source, such as an LED tube lamp, designed to replace fluorescent lamps. It claims a specific electrical architecture, including terminals for receiving high-frequency alternating current from a driver (ballast), a rectifier coupled to the terminals via a capacitor, and fuses interconnecting the terminal pins, intended to ensure compatibility and safety (Compl. ¶22, ¶118).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶116).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Keystone’s SmartDrive LED Lamps, which are tube-style fluorescent replacements compatible with electronic ballasts. The infringement allegations are based on the product’s internal circuitry as revealed in a schematic (Compl. ¶34, ¶¶119-129).

U.S. Patent No. 10,117,300 - Configurable Lighting System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,117,300, “Configurable Lighting System,” issued October 30, 2018.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a luminaire with a "lumen control module" that allows for field-selection of the light output. The module includes a multi-position switch coupled to a plurality of resistors. Each switch position corresponds to a different resistance, which in turn is translated into a specific current level supplied to the light source, thereby determining its lumen output (Compl. ¶23, ¶142).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶139).
  • Accused Features: The Aviva Downlight is accused of infringing based on its inclusion of switches and resistors that allegedly form a lumen control module for setting the current level delivered to the fixture's LED arrays (Compl. ¶33, ¶141, ¶146).

U.S. Patent No. 10,506,682 - Configurable Lighting System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,506,682, “Configurable Lighting System,” issued December 10, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’300 patent and also covers a luminaire with a control module for setting current levels via a switch and resistive components. A key feature is that the light source is claimed to illuminate regardless of the switch's position, ensuring the fixture is always operational even while being configured (Compl. ¶24, ¶160).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶158).
  • Accused Features: Keystone’s Advanta Downlight is accused of infringement based on its "color select adjustment switch" and associated circuitry, which allegedly allows the light source to illuminate at different color outputs based on the switch position (Compl. ¶31, ¶168).

U.S. Patent No. 9,820,350 - Configurable Lighting System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,820,350, “Configurable Lighting System,” issued November 14, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a luminaire with two distinct light sources, each with a different color temperature. A controller connected to a four-state input is configured to selectively power the first light source, the second light source, or both in combination, to produce multiple distinct color temperature outputs from a single fixture (Compl. ¶25, ¶181).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶178).
  • Accused Features: The Circa LED Slim Wafer Downlight is accused of infringement based on its "color select adjustment switch," which allegedly provides at least four settable states to control two different light sources to produce various color temperatures (Compl. ¶35, ¶183-184).

U.S. Patent No. 11,408,588 - Configurable Lighting System

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,408,588, “Configurable Lighting System,” issued August 9, 2022.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a lighting device with a first set of LEDs at a first color temperature and a second set at a second color temperature. A switch controls the LEDs and includes a configuration that produces a third, intermediate color temperature by mixing light emitted from at least a portion of both sets of LEDs (Compl. ¶26, ¶204).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 21 is asserted (Compl. ¶202).
  • Accused Features: The Advanta Downlight is accused of infringement based on its use of a "color select adjustment switch" to control cool white and warm white LED arrays, including a setting that allegedly powers both arrays to produce a mixed, intermediate color temperature (Compl. ¶31, ¶206-209).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses multiple families of Keystone’s LED lighting products, including the XFIT Area Light, Advanta Downlight, HID Replacement LED Lamps, Aviva Retrofit Downlights, SmartDrive LED Lamps, and Circa LED Slim Wafer Downlights (Compl. ¶¶30-35).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products represent a range of common commercial and residential LED lighting solutions. The XFIT is an outdoor area light (Compl. ¶30). The Advanta, Aviva, and Circa products are indoor downlights, with some designed for retrofitting existing fixtures (Compl. ¶¶31, 33, 35). The HID Replacement and SmartDrive lamps are designed as energy-efficient replacements for legacy high-intensity discharge and fluorescent tube lamps, respectively (Compl. ¶¶32, 34).
  • A key feature highlighted across several accused products (Advanta, Circa) is field-configurability, allowing installers to select wattage and/or color temperature using dip switches on the fixture (Compl. ¶75, ¶81). This image from the complaint shows the adjustment switches on the Advanta Downlight (Compl. p. 75).
  • The complaint alleges these products are sold throughout the United States, including in the Northern District of Georgia, through distributors such as Grainger Industrial Supply and via an Atlanta fulfillment center operated by Keystone (Compl. ¶¶4, 7, 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,063,577 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a set of input terminals for receiving a supply voltage; The XFIT Area Light driver includes input terminals, such as a half-bridge input terminal and a ground terminal, for receiving a supply voltage. ¶51 col. 2:15-16
a resonant capacitor; The accused driver includes a resonant capacitor identified as C37 in a provided schematic. ¶52 col. 2:16-17
a transformer, a primary winding of the transformer and the resonant capacitor being coupled in series to the set of input terminals, The driver includes a transformer (T2A) whose primary winding is coupled in series with the resonant capacitor (C37) to the input terminals. ¶53 col. 2:17-20
a rectifier means coupled to the secondary winding of the transformer for rectifying an alternating load voltage on the secondary winding of the transformer; The driver includes a rectifier, comprising at least two diodes, coupled to the secondary winding of the transformer to rectify the alternating voltage. ¶54 col. 2:21-24
an output circuit...wherein the buffer circuitry comprises an inductor connected in series with the set of output terminals, and the value of the inductor is selected to provide a substantially constant current through the LED. The driver includes an output circuit with buffer circuitry containing an inductor (LF3) connected in series with the LED output terminals. The complaint alleges the inductor's value is selected to provide a substantially constant current, supported by marketing materials describing the product as a "CONSTANT CURRENT" driver. ¶¶55-56 col. 2:25-31
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claim recites "rectifier means," invoking means-plus-function interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The scope of this term will be limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the ’577 patent specification (e.g., diodes) and their equivalents. The analysis will question whether the specific diode configuration in the accused driver is structurally equivalent to the disclosed embodiments.
    • Technical Questions: A central question is whether the accused driver's inductor is, as a matter of technical fact, "selected to provide a substantially constant current." The complaint relies on marketing materials to support this element (Compl. ¶56). The court may need to determine the degree of current ripple or variation permitted by the term "substantially constant" and whether the accused product's performance falls within that scope.

U.S. Patent No. 8,070,328 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an array of LEDs in thermal connectivity with a heatsink, said array of LEDs positioned adjacent a first aperture of a multi-piece reflector assembly: The Advanta Downlight contains an array of LEDs mounted on a circuit board that is in thermal contact with a heatsink. The LED array is positioned above the first aperture of the reflector assembly. This annotated photograph shows the LED array and heatsink (Compl. p. 32). ¶70 col. 2:1-3
said multi-piece reflector assembly including: a first reflector having said first aperture disposed in an upper portion...and an opposed larger second aperture in a lower portion... The assembly allegedly includes a first reflector component with a smaller upper aperture and a larger lower aperture. This annotated photograph shows the alleged first reflector (Compl. p. 33). ¶71 col. 2:4-6
a second reflector having a first aperture positioned adjacent said second aperture of said first reflector and a second aperture...defining a light exit passageway; The assembly allegedly includes a second reflector component with two apertures that, when combined with the first reflector, defines the path for light to exit the fixture. ¶72 col. 2:7-10
a diffuser positioned proximal to and extending across said second aperture of said first reflector and said first aperture of said second reflector. The downlight allegedly includes a diffuser placed between the lower aperture of the first reflector and the upper aperture of the second reflector. This annotated photograph shows the alleged diffuser placement (Compl. p. 35). ¶73 col. 2:10-13
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the product having a "multi-piece reflector assembly." A potential dispute is whether the accused product's optical system is constructed from multiple distinct reflector components as claimed, or if it is an integrated, single-piece component that merely has features resembling separate parts.
    • Technical Questions: What is the precise location and function of the accused diffuser? The claim requires the diffuser to be positioned so that it extends across the apertures of both the first and second reflectors, suggesting it is structurally situated between them. The factual question will be whether the accused diffuser meets this specific positional and structural requirement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Patent: ’577 Patent

    • The Term: "substantially constant current"
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the required performance characteristic of the claimed driver's output. Its construction is critical because nearly all LED drivers have some degree of output current ripple; the case may turn on how much ripple is permissible before the current is no longer "substantially constant."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and specification use the term without providing a specific numerical range or percentage of variation, which may support a construction covering any current that is generally stable and suitable for driving an LED without perceptible flicker (’577 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-49).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links the "substantially constant current" directly to the "value of the inductor [being] selected to provide" it. This may support a narrower construction limited to circuits where the inductor is specifically sized and chosen for the express purpose of current smoothing, as opposed to an inductor that is present for other reasons and has an incidental smoothing effect (’577 Patent, col. 2:29-31).

  • Patent: ’328 Patent

    • The Term: "multi-piece reflector assembly"
    • Context and Importance: The entire infringement theory for the ’328 patent rests on the accused product containing physically separate first and second reflectors. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires two or more separately manufactured and assembled components, or if it could also read on a single component with distinct, integrally formed sections.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims "a first reflector" and "a second reflector" as elements of the assembly, but does not explicitly require them to be separately manufactured or attached. An argument could be made that a single molding with two distinct functional reflector sections meets the claim language.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently depict two physically separate components (reflector 52 and reflector 54) that are assembled together (’328 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 3:51-52). This repeated depiction of separate parts may support a construction that excludes single-piece, integrally formed structures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges both active inducement and contributory infringement. Inducement allegations are based on Defendant’s alleged acts of selling the products and providing marketing materials, user manuals, and technical support that encourage infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶59, ¶76). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused products and their key components are not staple articles of commerce and are especially made for use in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶60, ¶77).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all nine patents. For seven of the patents, the allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge stemming from pre-suit notice letters sent by Plaintiff on dates including February 14, 2020, June 28, 2021, and May 29, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶ 36-38, 42). For the recently issued ’588 patent, knowledge is alleged to have begun with the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶211). The complaint asserts that Defendant’s continued infringement despite these notices constitutes willful and deliberate conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43).

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

  • Piecemeal Infringement vs. Integrated Design: The complaint asserts nine different patents covering discrete technological aspects of LED products (e.g., driver circuits, optical assemblies, thermal management, user controls). A central question will be one of holistic design vs. claimed elements: can Plaintiff successfully isolate specific components within Keystone’s integrated products and prove they meet every limitation of a given patent’s claims, or will Keystone demonstrate that its products, when viewed as a whole, operate in a technically distinct manner from the specific inventions claimed?
  • The Weight of Notice: Plaintiff alleges pre-suit notice for most asserted patents, some dating back over four years. This raises a key question of willfulness and damages: what evidence will emerge regarding Defendant’s actions or inactions in response to these notices? The determination of whether Keystone acted with objective recklessness in the face of a known risk of infringement will be a critical factor in assessing potential enhanced damages.
  • Construction of Functional and Configurational Claims: Several patents-in-suit, particularly those related to configurable lighting systems, rely on claims defining how components are controlled or how they interact (e.g., an input "settable in a first, a second, a third, and a fourth state" in the ’350 patent). A core issue will be one of claim construction: will these terms be interpreted broadly to cover any mechanism that achieves the claimed number of states, or will they be limited to the specific switch-and-resistor networks disclosed in the patent specifications?