DCT

1:25-cv-13851

Creeled Inc v. Promier Products Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-13851, N.D. Ill., 11/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant Promier resides in the district, and Defendant Tractor Supply has allegedly committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ high-lumen flashlights and headlamps infringe six patents related to the design, structure, and thermal management of light-emitting diode (LED) packages and arrays.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the micro-architecture of high-performance LED components, a critical area for improving the efficiency, brightness, and reliability of solid-state lighting products.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant Promier on June 17, 2025, providing notice of alleged infringement of at least U.S. Patent No. 9,754,926. Plaintiff also claims to provide public notice of its patents via a web address.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-10-31 Earliest Priority Date for ’850 and ’442 Patents
2011-01-31 Earliest Priority Date for ’926 Patent
2012-05-31 Earliest Priority Date for ’112 Patent
2014-09-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’D486 Patent
2014-12-11 Earliest Priority Date for ’D066 Patent
2015-06-30 ’850 Patent Issued
2017-06-27 ’D486 Patent Issued
2017-09-05 ’926 Patent Issued
2019-10-08 ’112 Patent Issued
2020-08-04 ’D066 Patent Issued
2023-10-17 ’442 Patent Issued
2025-06-17 Plaintiff sent notice letter to Promier re: ’926 Patent
2025-11-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,754,926 - “Light emitting diode (LED) arrays including direct die attach and related assemblies” (Issued Sep. 5, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes technical challenges in creating dense arrays of LEDs, noting that traditional wire bonds can constrain packaging density and cause light absorption, while monolithic chip arrays can be costly and have limited shapes (’926 Patent, col. 1:47-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an LED array architecture where individual LED dice are mounted to "bridge" electrically conductive pads on a packaging substrate (’926 Patent, col. 2:15-34). This direct die attach method connects the anode and cathode contacts using metallic bonds without requiring wire bonds that arch over the top of the die, which may allow for more compact and varied array configurations (’926 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This direct die attach approach for arrays was aimed at enabling more efficient and densely packed LED components by moving away from some of the physical and optical limitations of traditional wire bonding techniques (’926 Patent, col. 1:52-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶46).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An LED array with a packaging substrate and first and second electrically conductive contact pads.
    • The second pad comprises first and second portions on opposite sides of an "intervening portion" of the first pad.
    • A first LED die "bridging" the first portion of the second pad and the intervening portion of the first pad.
    • A second LED die bridging the second portion of the second pad and the intervening portion of the first pad.
    • Each die is coupled using metallic bonds with widths that are at least 60 percent of the width of the LED die.
    • A reflective and electrically insulating filler is located on the substrate between the first and second pads.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 9,070,850 - “Light emitting diode package and method for fabricating same” (Issued Jun. 30, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies heat dissipation as a critical problem for high-power LEDs, noting that conventional ceramic submounts may not conduct heat efficiently, leading to localized heat under the LED that can reduce its lifetime or cause failure (’850 Patent, col. 2:17-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an LED package designed for improved thermal management. It features large, electrically and thermally conductive elements on the top surface of a submount, which are designed to spread heat from the LED across a majority of that surface (’850 Patent, col. 4:9-15). A separate thermally conductive element on the bottom surface further conducts heat away from the submount, while a molded lens with an integrated protective layer encapsulates the LED (’850 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture provides a multi-pathway thermal solution by spreading heat laterally across the top surface and conducting it vertically through the bottom, enabling higher power operation and potentially greater reliability for LED packages (’850 Patent, col. 2:30-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶54).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An LED package with a submount having top and bottom surfaces.
    • A plurality of top electrically and thermally conductive elements on the top surface.
    • An LED on one of the top elements, where the elements spread heat from the LED "across the majority" of the submount's top surface.
    • A bottom thermally conductive element on the bottom surface for conducting heat from the submount.
    • A lens over the LED.
    • A protective layer in direct contact with and extending from the bottom of the lens, with at least a portion of the lens positioned above the protective layer's top surface.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶54).

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,439,112, “Light emitter packages, systems, and methods having improved performance,” issued Oct. 8, 2019.

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for brighter, more cost-effective LED packages (’112 Patent, col. 1:44-51). The disclosed solution is a package structure comprising a submount with electrical components, a reflective solder mask disposed only in the gap between electrical traces, and specific layers of silicone and phosphor to enhance light extraction and performance (’112 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:40-55).

  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 23 (Compl. ¶61).

  • Accused Features: The "light emitter package" within the Kodiak Flashlight with Magnetic Charging and LitezAll Tactical Flashlight are alleged to meet the elements of Claim 23 (Compl. ¶61-62).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,791,442, “Light emitting diode package and method for fabricating same,” issued Oct. 17, 2023.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’850 Patent, also targets improved thermal management in LED packages (’442 Patent, col. 2:17-26). The invention describes a package with a submount, contact pads separated by a gap, an LED, and a lens with an integral protective layer that extends to the submount edges, where a portion of this protective layer is located within the gap between the contact pads (’442 Patent, Abstract).

  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 14 (Compl. ¶68).

  • Accused Features: The LED packages in the Kodiak Komrade, LitezAll Tactical Flashlight, and LitezAll Ultac are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶68-69).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D790,486, “LED package with truncated encapsulant,” issued Jun. 27, 2017.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for an LED package, characterized by a domed encapsulant (lens) with truncated or flattened corners, giving it a distinct, non-hemispherical appearance when viewed from the top and sides.

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶76-77).

  • Accused Features: The LED packages within the Kodiak Flashlight with Magnetic Charging and the Kodiak KUB are alleged to be substantially the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶75). The complaint provides a visual comparison of the accused product's component and the patent's design figures (Compl. ¶76).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D892,066, “LED package,” issued Aug. 4, 2020.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims the ornamental design for an LED package, showing a generally square base with a domed lens. The design is defined by the overall visual appearance and proportions of these features.

  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶84-85).

  • Accused Features: The LED packages within the Kodiak Flashlight with Magnetic Charging and the Kodiak KUB are alleged to infringe the claimed ornamental design (Compl. ¶83). The complaint includes a visual comparison intended to demonstrate the alleged similarity (Compl. ¶84).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are a series of high-output flashlights and headlamps sold under the "Kodiak" and "LitezAll" brand names, including the Kodiak Kolossus, Kodiak Kong, Kodiak Komrade, Kodiak Flashlight with Magnetic Charging, Kodiak KUB, LitezAll Tactical Flashlight, and LitezAll Ultac (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The products are marketed as high-performance tactical flashlights, with advertised outputs ranging from 1,000 to 18,000 lumens (Compl. ¶19, ¶20, ¶22). The infringement allegations focus not on the end-product flashlights themselves, but on the internal LED packages and arrays that they contain (Compl. ¶1). The complaint provides screenshots from Defendants' websites showing the external appearance and pricing of several accused products, such as the Kodiak Kolossus (Compl. ¶20). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Promier manufactures and/or sells these products, some of which are then sold by Defendant Tractor Supply (Compl. ¶19, ¶36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,754,926 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an LED array comprising: a packaging substrate having a packaging substrate face The Kodiak Kolossus and Kodiak Kong are alleged to contain an LED array with a packaging substrate. ¶47.i col. 2:15-16
a first electrically conductive contact pad at the packaging substrate face; The accused LED array is alleged to have a first electrically conductive contact pad. ¶47.ii col. 2:40-44
a second electrically conductive contact pad at the packaging substrate face, the second electrically conducting pad comprising first and second portions disposed on opposite sides of an intervening portion of the first electrically conductive contact pad; The accused LED array is alleged to have a second pad with a specific topology where it is split into two portions surrounding part of the first pad. ¶47.iii col. 5:42-50
a first light emitting diode die bridging the first portion of the second electrically conductive pad and the intervening portion of the first electrically conductive pad... wherein widths of the metallic bonds... are at least 60 percent of a width of the first light emitting diode die; The accused array is alleged to have a first LED die connecting the specified pad portions with metallic bonds meeting the 60% width requirement. ¶47.iv col. 2:20-29
a second light emitting diode die [bridging] the second portion of the second electrically conductive pad and the intervening portion of the first electrically conductive pad... wherein widths of the metallic bonds... are at least 60 percent of a width of the first light emitting diode die; The accused array is alleged to have a second LED die similarly connecting other specified pad portions with metallic bonds meeting the 60% width requirement. ¶47.v col. 2:35-44
a filler on the packaging substrate between the first and second electrically conductive pads, wherein the filler is reflective and electrically insulating. The accused array is alleged to have a reflective and insulating filler material between the pads. ¶47.vi col. 3:32-39
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products' pad layout constitutes an "intervening portion of the first electrically conductive contact pad" being situated between "first and second portions" of the second pad, as required by the claim's specific topological language.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will turn on factual evidence confirming the physical structure of the accused LED arrays. A key question is what evidence the complaint provides to support the quantitative limitation that the "widths of the metallic bonds" are "at least 60 percent of a width of the first light emitting diode die."

U.S. Patent No. 9,070,850 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An LED package comprising: a submount comprising a top surface and a bottom surface; The accused products are alleged to contain an LED package with a submount having top and bottom surfaces. ¶55.i col. 4:2-3
a plurality of top electrically and thermally conductive elements on said top surface of said submount; The accused LED package is alleged to have multiple top conductive elements that are also thermally conductive. ¶55.ii col. 4:18-21
an LED on one of said top electrically and thermally conductive elements... said top electrically and thermally conductive elements spreading heat from said LED across the majority of said submount top surface; The accused package is alleged to contain an LED mounted on a top element, with those elements functioning to spread heat across more than half of the submount's top surface. ¶55.iii col. 4:9-15
a bottom thermally conductive element on said bottom surface not in electrical contact with said top electrically and thermally conductive elements and conducting heat from said submount; The accused package is alleged to have a thermally conductive element on its bottom surface, electrically isolated from the top elements. ¶55.iv col. 4:51-55
a lens over said LED; and The accused package is alleged to have a lens covering the LED. ¶55.v col. 5:29-31
a protective layer in direct contact with and extending from a bottom of said lens; The accused package is alleged to have a protective layer that is in direct contact with and extends outward from the base of the lens. ¶55.vi col. 5:35-40
wherein at least a portion of said lens is above a top surface of said protective layer. The accused package is alleged to have a structure where the lens rises above the plane of the surrounding protective layer. ¶55.vii col. 5:35-40
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The term "majority" will be a key point of construction. The dispute may center on how "majority of said submount top surface" is defined and measured—whether it refers to total area, available area, or another metric.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the top elements of the accused packages actually perform the function of "spreading heat" across the majority of the surface. This functional language raises the question of what technical evidence is needed to prove this thermal behavior, as opposed to merely showing the structure's physical dimensions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’926 Patent:

  • The Term: "bridging"
  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires an LED die "bridging" two distinct portions of the conductive pads. The interpretation of this term is critical to determining whether the physical and electrical connection between the die and the pads in the accused products falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the required spatial and electrical relationship between the die and the underlying substrate topology.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term in a functional sense, to mean creating an electrical connection between pads. The abstract states an "LED die may bridge first and second ones of the electrically conductive pads," suggesting a connection is the key aspect (’926 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue "bridging" implies spanning a physical gap without intermediate support, akin to a bridge over a river. The figures, such as Figure 1, show the die spanning a visible gap between conductive areas, which may support a more limited, structural interpretation (’926 Patent, Fig. 1).

For the ’850 Patent:

  • The Term: "spreading heat ... across the majority of said submount top surface"
  • Context and Importance: This functional limitation is central to the patent's purported solution for thermal management. The case may turn on whether the accused devices' conductive elements are proven to perform this function to the required degree. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links a structural feature (the top conductive elements) to a required performance outcome (spreading heat over >50% of the surface), making infringement a question of both structure and function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes the goal of improved heat dissipation and describes the top conductive elements as a means to that end, suggesting any structure that achieves this functional result could be covered (’850 Patent, col. 9:15-20). The term "majority" itself is a broad quantitative term.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific embodiments shown, such as in Figure 2a, depict large, contiguous conductive areas that clearly cover more than 50% of the top surface area (’850 Patent, Fig. 2a). A defendant may argue that "spreading heat across the majority" requires a physical structure with a surface area covering over 50%, not just a functional outcome that is difficult to measure.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement against both defendants.
    • Against Promier, the allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge from a notice letter dated June 17, 2025, concerning the ’926 Patent, as well as constructive notice from Plaintiff's patent marking website (Compl. ¶34, ¶50).
    • Against Tractor Supply, the allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge, stating that "continued infringement ... after notification of this complaint will be willful" (Compl. ¶44).

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

  • A central technical question will be one of functional performance: for the ’850 and related patents, does the accused products' architecture achieve the claimed thermal function of "spreading heat across the majority" of the submount surface, and what evidence will be required to prove this thermal behavior as opposed to merely showing the physical dimensions of the components?
  • A core issue for the ’926 Patent will be one of structural correspondence: do the accused LED arrays possess the precise topological arrangement of conductive pads—including an "intervening portion" of one pad between two portions of another—and the quantitative metallic bond widths required by the claims, or do they utilize a different, non-infringing architecture?
  • For the asserted design patents, the dispute will turn on the "ordinary observer" test: considering the prior art, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused LED packages, as shown in the complaint's visual comparisons (Compl. ¶76, ¶84), substantially the same as the patented designs to the eye of an ordinary observer?