DCT

1:22-cv-07063

LedComm LLC v. Ace Hardware Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00419, W.D. Tex., 04/26/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Ace Hardware Corp having a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically a location at 1424 Hewitt Dr, Waco, TX.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s various LED light bulb and lighting fixture products infringe six patents related to the structural design, materials, and manufacturing methods of light-emitting devices.
  • Technical Context: The patents address various technical challenges in LED technology, including improving durability, heat dissipation, and light-emission efficiency and quality, which are critical for the performance and longevity of modern lighting products.
  • Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-03-20 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,803,606
2002-10-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,982,522
2003-01-06 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,012,277
2004-04-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,301,176
2004-08-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,161,190
2004-10-12 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,803,606
2005-12-16 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,490,959
2006-01-03 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,982,522
2006-03-14 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,012,277
2007-01-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,161,190
2007-11-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,301,176
2009-02-17 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,490,959
2022-04-26 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,803,606 - Light Emitting Device and Manufacturing Method Thereof, Issued October 12, 2004

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that in conventional light-emitting devices, the resin used to seal the light-emitting element adheres poorly to the device's reflector, particularly when subjected to heat during manufacturing or operation. This poor adherence can cause the reflector to detach, leading to mechanical failure of bonding wires or water intrusion, ultimately causing the device to malfunction (Compl. ¶17; ’606 Patent, col. 1:24-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes forming a rough surface on the face of the reflector that is in contact with the resin. This rough surface increases the adherence between the reflector and the resin, making detachment "hardly" occur even under thermal stress, thereby preventing the associated device failures (Compl. ¶17; ’606 Patent, col. 1:55-2:5). The patent’s Figure 1 illustrates this configuration, showing reflector (7) with a roughened face (7a) adjacent to the sealing resin (9) (’606 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a structural solution to improve the mechanical reliability and longevity of LED packages, a critical factor for their adoption in consumer and industrial applications where durability is expected (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A light emitting device comprising: a substrate;
    • a light emitting element on the substrate;
    • a reflector on the substrate for reflecting a light beam outgoing from the light emitting element;
    • a resin disposed between the light emitting element and the reflector on the substrate,
    • wherein a face of the reflector that reflects a light beam outgoing from the light emitting element is formed into a rough surface.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶54).

U.S. Patent No. 6,982,522 - LED Device Including Phosphor Layers on the Reflecting Surface, Issued January 3, 2006

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent explains that prior white LEDs, which often combined a blue LED with phosphors, suffered from low luminance due to poor excitation or wavelength conversion efficiency. Using a shorter wavelength (blue-violet or UV) LED could improve phosphor excitation, but the high-efficiency resins used for the device's base and reflector had poor reflectance at these shorter wavelengths, again reducing luminance (Compl. ¶23; ’522 Patent, col. 1:48-2:3).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an LED device with a phosphor layer formed directly on the reflection surface of the device's recess. This layer absorbs light from the LED chip and re-emits it before it can be absorbed by the less-reflective base material. This configuration allows for more effective wavelength conversion, "enhancing reflection efficiency and luminance" (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24; ’522 Patent, col. 2:13-27). The invention further proposes that this phosphor layer can comprise multiple layers, each emitting a different color, to achieve high-quality white light (’522 Patent, col. 2:36-43).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provided a method to create more luminous and color-accurate white LEDs by mitigating efficiency losses associated with using short-wavelength light sources, a key step toward high-performance solid-state lighting (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶67).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A LED device, comprising: a base having a recess with the upper surface opened, the inner wall surface of the recess constituting a reflection surface;
    • a LED chip disposed on the inner bottom of the recess;
    • a resin filled in the recess, the resin including phosphors which absorb a part of light emitted from the LED chip to convert the wavelength thereof and emit light; and
    • a phosphor layer formed on the reflection surface, the phosphor layer including the phosphors, wherein the phosphor layer comprises a plurality of phosphor layers each of which is excited to emit a different wavelength of light from each other.
  • The complaint reserves the right to modify its description based on discovery (Compl. ¶67).

Multi-Patent Capsule Analysis

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,012,277, Semiconductor Light Emitting Device, Issued March 14, 2006

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses poor efficiency, reliability, and lifetime in LEDs caused by high current levels. It discloses a device configuration with a metal body located under the lead frames to help reduce the negative effects of the current, thereby improving reliability and lifetime (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶80).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused bulbs contain an LED chip mounted on a first lead frame, connected to a second lead frame, with a metal body located under and extending between regions of both lead frames (Compl. ¶80).

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,161,190, Semiconductor Light-Emitting Device and Method of Manufacturing the Same, Issued January 9, 2007

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of heat dissipation in high-intensity LEDs. It describes a device with a dedicated heat-radiating member bonded to the back of a lead frame via an electrically-conductive layer, allowing heat to be more effectively transferred away from the light-emitting element (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶93).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused bulbs have a light-emitting element on a lead frame, a resin portion for fixing the frame, and a heat-radiating member bonded to the back of the lead frame with an electrically-conductive layer (Compl. ¶93).

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,301,176, Semiconductor Light Emitting Device and Fabrication Method Thereof, Issued November 27, 2007

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent seeks to solve performance issues that arise when reducing the size of LEDs, such as negative impacts on light output directivity and lead frame strength. The invention discloses a configuration where a light-transmitting resin provides a holding portion for the lead frames, and a separate light-shielding resin covers the bottom and sides of this holding portion to ensure strength and control light output (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶106).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused products use a light-transmitting resin to hold the lead frames and a surrounding light-shielding resin with higher reflectance to cover the holding portion's bottom and side surfaces (Compl. ¶106).

  • U.S. Patent No. 7,490,959, Light Emitting Apparatus, Backlight Apparatus, And Electronic Apparatus, Issued February 17, 2009

    • Technology Synopsis: To increase the luminance and coupling efficiency of a thin, small light source (e.g., for a backlight), the patent describes a light-emitting apparatus with a transparent sealing resin that forms a concave surface. The geometry is controlled such that the top of the curved bonding wire connecting the light emitter to an electrode substantially coincides with the deepest part of this concave surface (Compl. ¶¶ 50-51).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶119).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused products have a light emitter on a placement surface, sealed by a transparent resin that forms a concave light-outgoing surface, with the bonding wire's peak coinciding with the concave surface's deepest point (Compl. ¶119).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are a range of Ace Hardware branded and Globe Electric branded LED light bulbs and fixtures, including various "A19" bulbs, work lights, floodlights, spike lights, and retrofit kits (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2). The infringement allegations focus on specific products, such as the "Ace Hardware A19 2700k 75W Bulb" and the "Ace Hardware LED Worklight" (Compl. ¶54).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint focuses on the internal construction of the LED components within the accused products. The allegations detail the physical arrangement of substrates, LED chips, reflectors, resins, lead frames, and phosphor layers, as revealed through product teardowns and photographic analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 67, 80, 93, 106, 119). The complaint alleges these products are marketed, offered, and distributed throughout the United States, including in the Western District of Texas (Compl. ¶2). The complaint provides visual evidence from a teardown of an Ace Hardware A19 2700k 75W Bulb, showing the internal LED array (Compl. p. 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,803,606 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A light emitting device comprising: a substrate; The accused bulbs and worklights are alleged to comprise a substrate, identified in annotated cross-sectional photographs of the LED component. A cross-sectional view of an example phosphor LED from the Ace Hardware LED Worklight shows the substrate annotated in red (Compl. p. 16). ¶54, 1(b) col. 1:8-9
a light emitting element on the substrate; The accused products are alleged to have a light emitting element on the substrate, as identified in annotated cross-sectional photographs. ¶54, 1(c) col. 1:9-10
a reflector on the substrate for reflecting a light beam outgoing from the light emitting element; The complaint alleges the presence of a reflector, identified in annotated top-down photographs of the LED with the phosphor layer removed. A top-down view of a phosphor LED from an Ace Hardware bulb shows the reflector after the phosphor layer was removed (Compl. p. 18). ¶54, 1(d) col. 1:12-14
a resin disposed between the light emitting element and the reflector on the substrate, The accused products are alleged to contain a resin disposed between the light emitting element and the reflector, identified in annotated photographs. ¶54, 1(e) col. 1:15-18
wherein a face of the reflector on that reflects a light beam outgoing from the light emitting element is formed into a rough surface. A face of the reflector in the accused products is alleged to be formed into a rough surface, which is shown in close-up photographs of the reflector after the phosphor and resin layers have been removed. ¶54, 1(f) col. 1:55-61
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The central question for infringement of the ’606 Patent is whether the surface texture of the accused reflector constitutes a "rough surface" as contemplated by the patent. The complaint provides visual evidence of a textured surface (Compl. p. 20), but the patent specification provides a quantitative definition, stating the surface has an "arithmetic mean roughness ranging of 1 μm or more and 20 μm or less" (’606 Patent, col. 2:6-9). The dispute may turn on whether the accused reflector's surface meets this specific, measurable criterion.

U.S. Patent No. 6,982,522 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A LED device, comprising: a base having a recess with the upper surface opened, the inner wall surface of the recess constituting a reflection surface; The accused products are alleged to comprise a base with an open recess, where the inner wall acts as a reflection surface. This is identified in annotated photographs. ¶67, 1(b) col. 2:13-16
a LED chip disposed on the inner bottom of the recess; The complaint alleges an LED chip is disposed on the inner bottom of the recess, as shown in annotated cross-sectional views. ¶67, 1(c) col. 2:16-17
a resin filled in the recess, the resin including phosphors which absorb a part of light emitted from the LED chip to convert the wavelength thereof and emit light; The accused products are alleged to have a resin containing phosphors that fills the recess, as shown in close-up cross-sectional views. ¶67, 1(d) col. 2:17-21
a phosphor layer formed on the reflection surface, the phosphor layer including the phosphors, wherein the phosphor layer comprises a plurality of phosphor layers each of which is excited to emit a different wavelength of light from each other. The complaint alleges the accused products have a phosphor layer on the reflection surface that comprises multiple distinct layers. Annotated photographs identify a "First Phosphor Layer" and a "Second Phosphor Layer" (Compl. p. 31), which are alleged to emit different wavelengths of light. ¶67, 1(e) col. 2:36-43
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope & Technical Question: A key point of contention for the ’522 Patent will likely be the limitation requiring "a plurality of phosphor layers each of which is excited to emit a different wavelength of light from each other." The complaint provides photographs labeling two distinct phosphor layers (Compl. pp. 31-32). The court will need to determine if these are truly separate layers with different compositions as required by the claim, or a single, non-uniform layer. This raises a factual question about the physical and chemical composition of the accused phosphor structure and a legal question about whether that structure meets the claim's "plurality of layers" requirement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 6,803,606:

  • The Term: "rough surface"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central point of novelty described in the patent, intended to solve the problem of resin-reflector detachment. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the accused device's reflector has a surface that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent provides a specific, quantitative definition that the complaint's visual evidence does not explicitly satisfy.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not include a numerical range, simply requiring "a rough surface." A plaintiff could argue that any intentionally non-smooth or textured surface designed to improve adhesion falls within the plain meaning of the term.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines the term with numerical bounds: "the rough surface of the reflector has an arithmetic mean roughness ranging of 1 μm or more and 20 μm or less" (’606 Patent, col. 2:6-9). A defendant could argue that this passage acts as a definitional statement, limiting the claim scope to only those surfaces that fall within this precise range.

For U.S. Patent No. 6,982,522:

  • The Term: "a plurality of phosphor layers each of which is excited to emit a different wavelength of light"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the invention from a single, blended phosphor layer. Infringement hinges on whether the accused product has physically distinct layers with functionally distinct phosphor compositions. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence of layering in the complaint (Compl. p. 31) could be subject to interpretation, and proving the functional requirement (emitting different wavelengths) will require expert testing and analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment with three layers (red, green, blue) but does not state this is the only possibility (’522 Patent, col. 3:51-56). A plaintiff might argue that any structure with detectable stratification and compositional variance between strata meets the "plurality" requirement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires distinct "layers," each emitting a different wavelength. A defendant could argue this requires discrete, separately formed layers with uniform composition within each layer, rather than a continuous gradient or poorly mixed single layer. The patent's discussion of forming layers via vacuum deposition or ink-jet application supports the idea of discrete, intentional layering (’522 Patent, col. 2:57-59).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and contributory infringement under § 271(c). Inducement is based on allegations that the Defendant promotes, advertises, and instructs customers on the use of the accused products, knowing such use will infringe (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 56-58). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products are components especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶59).
  • Willful Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges willful infringement, entitling the Plaintiff to enhanced damages. The basis for willfulness is post-suit knowledge, stating that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the patents "since at least as early as the filing and/or service of the Complaint" (e.g., Compl. ¶60). The complaint also alleges willful blindness to the existence of the patents pre-suit (e.g., Compl. ¶58).

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

This dispute centers on the specific, micro-level construction of the LED components within Ace Hardware's consumer lighting products. The case will likely turn on the resolution of several key technical and legal questions:

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope and evidentiary proof: For the ’606 Patent, can the visual evidence of a textured reflector surface satisfy the claim term "rough surface" when the patent specification provides a specific numerical range for that roughness? Similarly, for the ’522 Patent, do the annotated photographs of the accused device demonstrate a "plurality of phosphor layers" with distinct properties, or a single, non-uniform layer that falls outside the claim scope?

  2. A key theme across all six asserted patents is one of structural correspondence: The complaint alleges infringement of a portfolio of patents covering distinct structural solutions to problems like heat dissipation (’190, ’277 Patents), mechanical integrity (’176, ’606 Patents), and optical efficiency (’522, ’959 Patents). A primary challenge for the plaintiff will be to prove, through expert analysis and discovery, that the single design of the accused LED components simultaneously embodies the specific, and often intricate, structural limitations of all six inventions.

  3. Finally, a critical question will be the basis for willfulness: The complaint pleads willfulness based primarily on knowledge obtained from the filing of the suit itself. The court will have to evaluate whether the plaintiff can develop facts in discovery to support its claim of pre-suit willful blindness, which would be necessary to establish liability for enhanced damages for pre-suit conduct.