DCT
1:25-cv-03917
Creeled Inc v. Nanolumens Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CreeLED, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: NanoLumens, Inc. (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03917, N.D. Ga., 07/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a Georgia corporation that resides in the district, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s high-resolution outdoor LED video display panels infringe six patents related to the structure, design, and manufacturing of light-emitting diode (LED) packages and displays.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of surface-mount device (SMD) LED packages, focusing on improving durability, water resistance, and optical performance for large-scale video displays.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of the asserted patents on September 10, 2024, and subsequently sent claim charts at Defendant's request on February 27, 2025, facts which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-05-23 | Earliest Priority Date for ’991 Patent |
| 2008-05-16 | Earliest Priority Date for ’230 Patent |
| 2010-05-18 | ’991 Patent Issued |
| 2010-07-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’393 Patent |
| 2010-11-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’395 Patent |
| 2011-03-02 | Earliest Priority Date for ’D100 Patent |
| 2011-11-01 | ’230 Patent Issued |
| 2011-11-24 | Earliest Priority Date for ’257 Patent |
| 2013-10-08 | ’D100 Patent Issued |
| 2015-06-09 | ’257 Patent Issued |
| 2016-01-19 | ’395 Patent Issued |
| 2017-11-28 | ’393 Patent Issued |
| 2024-09-10 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendant |
| 2025-02-27 | Plaintiff allegedly sent claim charts to Defendant |
| 2025-07-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,049,230 - "Apparatus and System for Miniature Surface Mount Devices," Issued November 1, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in large-format LED displays, including dissipating heat from densely packed components and maintaining color fidelity and contrast, especially when viewed from off-axis angles, which can be degraded by light reflection and glare (ʼ230 Patent, col. 1:36-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an LED display system built from an array of surface-mount devices (SMDs). Each SMD contains a "vertically oriented, linear arrangement of LEDs" within a dark casing. This specific internal geometry is intended to improve color fidelity across a wide range of viewing angles, while the dark casing helps improve contrast (ʼ230 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-44). The structure also contemplates a design for efficient heat dissipation through the component leads to a printed circuit board (ʼ230 Patent, col. 4:40-50).
- Technical Importance: By arranging the different colored LEDs (e.g., red, green, blue) in a straight line within each pixel package, the invention sought to ensure that the perceived color mix remained consistent even when the screen was viewed from the side (ʼ230 Patent, col. 2:41-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶23).
- Essential elements of claim 19 include:
- A substrate with an array of surface-mount devices (SMDs) in columns and rows.
- Each SMD having a dark casing.
- Each SMD containing a vertically oriented, linear arrangement of LEDs to produce a full range of colors for one pixel.
- Signal processing and drive circuitry to energize the SMDs.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶24).
U.S. Patent No. 9,054,257 - "Water Resistant LED Devices and an LED Display Including Same," Issued June 9, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional LED packages often lack the durability and water resistance needed for harsh external conditions, such as outdoor displays (ʼ257 Patent, col. 2:4-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an LED package constructed from two distinct plastic portions. A "first plastic portion" that holds the LED components is surrounded by a "second portion." Crucially, the two portions have "different optical properties" (e.g., different colors or reflectivities). The design may include interlocking features, such as grooves and protrusions, to create a more robust mechanical bond and seal between the two portions, thereby enhancing water resistance (ʼ257 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:10-21, 46-59).
- Technical Importance: This two-material construction allows for the separate optimization of the inner and outer parts of the package—for example, using a highly reflective material for the inner light cup and a tough, dark, UV-resistant material for the outer body—while improving the structural integrity of the final assembly (ʼ257 Patent, col. 5:51-64).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A light emitting diode (LED) package.
- A first plastic portion with a mounting surface and a lower surface.
- A second portion that surrounds the first plastic portion, exposing its mounting and lower surfaces.
- The first and second portions possess "different optical properties."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶32).
U.S. Patent No. 9,831,393 - "Water Resistant Surface Mount Device Package," Issued November 28, 2017
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for durable, water-resistant LED packages by focusing on the mechanical interface between the metal lead frame and the plastic casing. The invention claims an emitter package where the lead frame has specific structural features (e.g., through-holes, cuts, U-bends, indentations) that the casing material fills during molding, creating a stronger mechanical interlock to prevent delamination and water ingress (Compl. ¶39; ’393 Patent, col. 2:36-42).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶18, 38).
- Accused Features: The emitter package within the accused NanoLumens display, which is alleged to contain a casing and a lead frame with the claimed structural features (Compl. ¶39).
U.S. Patent No. 7,718,991 - "Lighting Device and Method of Making," Issued May 18, 2010
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the optical degradation of LED encapsulants caused by high-energy light. The solution is a lighting device constructed with a distinct "encapsulant element" made of a silicone compound and a separate "supporting region." The two elements together define the device's outer surface, with the encapsulant surrounding the light emitter and the supporting region surrounding at least part of an electrode, a configuration designed to provide mechanical stability while protecting the optical path from degradation (’991 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:46-54).
- Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶18, 46).
- Accused Features: The lighting device component of the accused product is alleged to comprise the claimed combination of an encapsulant element, supporting region, and reflective element (Compl. ¶47).
U.S. Patent No. 9,240,395 - "Waterproof Surface Mount Device Package and Method," Issued January 19, 2016
- Technology Synopsis: This patent aims to improve the reliability and waterproofing of LED packages by controlling the physical characteristics of the internal wire bonds and the lead frame. The invention describes an emitter package with features in the lead frame (e.g., "v-cuts") to improve adhesion with the casing, and specifies that the "length, thickness, and loop height" of the wire bonds are controlled to enhance the package's reliability against mechanical stress and environmental factors (’395 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-42).
- Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 5 (Compl. ¶18, 54).
- Accused Features: The emitter package of the accused display, which is alleged to contain a lead frame with v-cuts and wire bonds with controlled dimensions to improve reliability (Compl. ¶55).
U.S. Design Patent No. D691,100 - "Miniature Surface Mount Device," Issued October 8, 2013
- Technology Synopsis: This is a design patent that claims the specific ornamental appearance of a miniature surface-mount device.
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim (Compl. ¶18, 62).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the design of the LED components in the infringing product is "substantially the same" as the claimed design in the eye of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶63).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the NanoLumens “Nixel Series Outdoor P8 Display” (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a high-resolution video display panel designed for outdoor use (Compl. ¶1, 17). The complaint includes a marketing image of the product as well as a more detailed photograph of an LED panel, which shows an array of individual light-emitting components arranged on a substrate (Compl. p. 6). A close-up image shows a single LED component and its associated cover, indicating the product is built from discrete SMD packages that form the pixels of the display (Compl. p. 6). The complaint alleges NanoLumens makes, uses, offers to sell, and/or sells these display panels (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not include, Exhibit G containing claim charts. The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations for each count.
’230 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substrate carrying an array of surface-mount devices (“SMDs”) arranged in vertical columns and horizontal rows | The Infringing Product is an LED display comprising a substrate with an array of SMDs arranged in rows and columns, as depicted in a provided image. | ¶23.i, p. 6 | col. 7:1-5 |
| each of said SMDs comprise a dark casing | Each SMD in the Infringing Product is alleged to have a dark casing. | ¶23.ii | col. 2:12-13 |
| each of said SMD’s contain a vertically oriented, linear arrangement of LEDs adapted to be energized to produce in combination a substantially full range of colors and to define one pixel of the display | The complaint alleges that each SMD in the Infringing Product contains this specific arrangement of LEDs to form a pixel. | ¶23.iii | col. 2:41-44 |
| signal processing and LED drive circuitry electrically connected to selectively energize the array of SMDs for producing visual images on the display | The Infringing Product contains signal processing and drive circuitry to operate the display. | ¶23.iv | col. 2:40-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The central technical question for the ’230 Patent will be whether the SMDs in the accused "Nixel Series" display actually contain a "vertically oriented, linear arrangement of LEDs." The complaint alleges this but provides no direct evidence, such as a teardown analysis or internal diagram, to substantiate the internal configuration of the accused components. The provided close-up image shows only the exterior of a single component with its cover (Compl. p. 6).
- Scope Questions: The definition of "dark casing" may be debated, as could the precise meaning of "vertically oriented" in the context of the display's final installation and orientation.
’257 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first plastic portion having a mounting surface and a lower surface | The LED package in the Infringing Product is alleged to contain a first plastic portion with the claimed surfaces. | ¶31.i | col. 5:10-14 |
| a second portion surrounding the first plastic portion and exposing the mounting surface and the lower surface of the first plastic portion | The LED package in the Infringing Product is alleged to have a second portion that surrounds the first portion in the claimed manner. | ¶31.ii | col. 5:15-18 |
| wherein the first plastic portion and the second portion have different optical properties | The complaint alleges that the first and second plastic portions of the LED package have different optical properties. | ¶31.iii | col. 5:18-21 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary dispute may arise over the term "different optical properties." The parties may contest what types of differences (e.g., color, reflectivity, transparency, refractive index) satisfy this limitation and what degree of difference is required.
- Technical Questions: Evidence will be required to establish the material composition and optical characteristics of the two alleged portions of the accused LED packages to determine if they are indeed "different" as claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’230 Patent, Claim 19
- The Term: "vertically oriented, linear arrangement of LEDs"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the specific spatial organization of the individual LED chips within each SMD package, which the patent presents as the key to achieving improved color fidelity at wide viewing angles. Infringement will depend entirely on whether the accused product's internal component structure matches this precise geometric limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not tie "vertically" to a specific external frame of reference, which could support an argument that any straight-line arrangement not parallel to the ground is covered.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently depicts this arrangement in figures where "vertically" corresponds to the vertical axis of the display screen, suggesting an intended orientation relative to the final product's use (ʼ230 Patent, FIG. 2, 18).
’257 Patent, Claim 1
- The Term: "different optical properties"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is central to defining the two-part structure of the patented package. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this patent may hinge on how broadly or narrowly this term is construed, as it dictates what constitutes a qualifying two-part device. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a functional, relative limitation rather than a precise structural one.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential differences, stating the portions may have "different colors, different reflectivities, or different transparencies" (ʼ257 Patent, col. 5:18-21), suggesting any of these could satisfy the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment describes a specific functional difference: an inner portion of light-colored, reflective polyphthalamide (PPA) and an outer portion of dark PPA (ʼ257 Patent, col. 5:60-64). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to such functionally significant differences (e.g., reflective vs. absorptive) rather than any incidental variation.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is pre-suit knowledge stemming from a notice letter Plaintiff allegedly sent on September 10, 2024, and a follow-up letter containing claim charts sent on February 27, 2025 (Compl. ¶19). The complaint also asserts constructive notice through Plaintiff's patent marking website (Compl. ¶19).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical fact-finding: Does the accused NanoLumens "Nixel" display contain SMD components with the specific "vertically oriented, linear arrangement of LEDs" as required by claim 19 of the ’230 patent? The complaint's allegations on this point are not currently supported by visual or documentary evidence of the product's internal structure.
- A central legal issue will be one of claim construction: What is the scope of "different optical properties" in the ’257 patent and what constitutes a qualifying structural "feature" (e.g., a "U-bend" or "through-hole") in the ’393 patent? The resolution of these terms will determine the boundary between the patented inventions and the prior art, directly impacting the infringement analysis.
- A broader case theme may be the intersection of related patents: The plaintiff has asserted multiple patents (’257, ’393, ’395) that disclose different technical means (two-part plastic molding, lead frame interlocks, wire bond control) to achieve a similar end goal: a robust, waterproof LED package. The court will need to carefully delineate the scope of each patent to assess infringement and validity without improperly conflating their distinct contributions.