DCT

1:25-cv-12244

Ams OSRAM Intl GmbH v. Shenzhen Meizhi Optoelectronics Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-12244, D. Mass., 08/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is an alien entity, which may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Spider Farmer line of LED grow light products infringes six U.S. patents related to the design, structure, and manufacturing of light-emitting semiconductor chips.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the intricate fabrication of Light Emitting Diode (LED) semiconductor components, which are fundamental to the modern lighting industry, including the growing market for specialized horticultural lighting.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior patent litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-09-29 Earliest Priority Date for '937 Patent
2010-06-10 Earliest Priority Date for '375 Patent
2011-02-14 Earliest Priority Date for '143 Patent
2013-04-30 '937 Patent Issued
2014-08-26 '375 Patent Issued
2015-01-19 Earliest Priority Date for '486 Patent
2016-08-05 Earliest Priority Date for '540 Patent
2016-09-13 Earliest U.S. Trademark Filing for SPIDER FARMER
2017-09-06 Earliest Priority Date for '586 Patent
2018-12-25 '143 Patent Issued
2019-11-11 SPIDER FARMER Trademark Assigned
2020-04-21 '486 Patent Issued
2022-07-26 '586 Patent Issued
2022-09-06 '540 Patent Issued
2024-10-17 Defendant Files U.S. Trademark Application for SPIDER FARMER
2024-10-20 Defendant Assigns Trademark Application
2025-08-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,431,937 - "SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP"

  • Issued: April 30, 2013
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that producing LED semiconductor chips with high "coupling-out efficiency" often requires costly and complex manufacturing processes ('937 Patent, col. 1:11-19).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a semiconductor chip structure that includes a carrier and a semiconductor body fixed together by a connection layer. To enhance light output, "a plurality of reflective or scattering elements" are formed between the carrier's back side ("second carrier area") and the light-generating active region, redirecting light that would otherwise be lost ('937 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:32-44). This design decouples the complex optical function from the semiconductor body itself, aiming to simplify manufacturing.
    • Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve LED efficiency by manipulating light with structures external to the core semiconductor body, potentially reducing manufacturing costs compared to methods that require more complex semiconductor fabrication ('937 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of the '937 patent, referencing a claim chart in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
      • A semiconductor body with an active region for generating radiation.
      • A carrier with a first area facing the semiconductor body and a second area remote from it, with the body fixed to the carrier by a connection layer.
      • A plurality of reflective or scattering elements positioned between the second carrier area and the active region.
      • The chip includes at least one of two features: a transmissive contact layer with a refractive index matched to the semiconductor body, or a connection layer with a refractive index matched to the semiconductor body.

U.S. Patent No. 8,816,375 - "RADIATION-EMITTING SEMICONDUCTOR BODY, METHOD FOR PRODUCING A RADIATION-EMITTING SEMICONDUCTOR BODY AND RADIATION-EMITTING SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENT"

  • Issued: August 26, 2014
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that conventional methods for creating backside electrical contacts on semiconductor bodies, such as serial ball bonding, are comparatively time-consuming ('375 Patent, col. 1:27-35).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a semiconductor body with pre-fabricated backside contact structures that are suitable for modern, parallel bonding processes. These structures are composed of a "volume region" and a distinct "surface bonding region" made from a different material, such as gold, which is amenable to techniques like ultrasound-friction welding or thermocompression ('375 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-44).
    • Technical Importance: This design facilitates more efficient, wafer-level manufacturing of semiconductor components by creating robust, pre-fabricated contacts compatible with high-throughput, parallel bonding methods, an improvement over slower serial processes ('375 Patent, col. 3:15-19).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint alleges infringement of the '375 patent, referencing a claim chart in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶23). Independent claim 1 is representative and includes the following essential elements:
      • A radiation-emitting semiconductor body comprising an epitaxial semiconductor layer sequence with an active zone.
      • A metallic carrier layer that mechanically stabilizes the semiconductor layer sequence.
      • Contact structures for electrical connection, where each structure has a volume region and a surface bonding region, and the surface bonding region is formed from a material that is different from the material of the volume region.

U.S. Patent No. 10,164,143 - "OPTOELECTRONIC SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING OPTOELECTRONIC SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS"

  • Issued: December 25, 2018
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of chip degradation due to moisture or oxidation by introducing an "encapsulation layer" (’143 Patent, col. 2:27-34). This layer is arranged between the chip’s connection layer and its carrier and is designed to project beyond the side face of the semiconductor body, creating a seal to protect against environmental contaminants and improve long-term stability (’143 Patent, col. 2:56-62).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint references a claim chart in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶29).
  • Accused Features: The Spider Farmer SF1000 LM301H EVO LED Grow Light product is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 10,629,486 - "METHOD FOR PRODUCING A PLURALITY OF SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS AND SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP"

  • Issued: April 21, 2020
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for singulating (dicing) chips from a wafer composed of different material layers. It proposes a multi-step process where a "functional layer" is first severed using coherent radiation (a laser), and then "separating trenches" are formed in the underlying carrier using a chemical method (’486 Patent, Abstract). A protective layer is applied to shield the newly cut side surfaces, aiming to improve yield and reliability over single-step dicing methods (’486 Patent, col. 4:1-11).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint references a claim chart in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶35).
  • Accused Features: The Spider Farmer SF1000 LM301H EVO LED Grow Light product is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 11,398,586 - "LIGHT-EMITTING SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENT"

  • Issued: July 26, 2022
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the degradation of semiconductor layers that have a high aluminum content, which makes them susceptible to oxidation. The invention specifies a "semiconductor protection layer" with a lower aluminum content that is placed either within or on top of the primary cladding layer (’586 Patent, col. 4:1-10). This more stable layer protects the underlying high-aluminum layers from oxidation, particularly during manufacturing steps like surface roughening, thereby improving device longevity and performance (’586 Patent, col. 4:50-56).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint references a claim chart in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The Spider Farmer SF 1000 product is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 11,437,540 - "COMPONENT HAVING METAL CARRIER LAYER AND LAYER THAT COMPENSATES FOR INTERNAL MECHANICAL STRAINS"

  • Issued: September 6, 2022
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of internal mechanical strains in semiconductor components, which can cause wafers to warp or roll up during manufacturing, reducing yield. The invention is a "compensating layer" positioned directly adjacent to the component's metallic carrier layer (’540 Patent, Abstract). The compensating layer and carrier layer are designed with materials and/or thicknesses that produce opposing strains, effectively neutralizing the net strain and ensuring the component remains flat and mechanically stable (’540 Patent, col. 3:1-7).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint references a claim chart in an unfiled exhibit (Compl. ¶47).
  • Accused Features: The Spider Farmer SF 1000 product is accused of infringement (Compl. ¶47).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused products as the "Spider Farmer SF1000 LM301H EVO LED Grow Light product" and variations of that name (e.g., "Spider Farmer SF 1000 product") (Compl. ¶¶17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are described as "lighting products" manufactured in China and imported for sale in the United States (Compl. ¶6). The complaint alleges they are sold through Defendant's website, Amazon.com, other online platforms, and brick-and-mortar locations, and are distributed via third-party warehouses in New Jersey and California (Compl. ¶¶7-8). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the internal construction or operation of the Accused Products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement for each of the six patents-in-suit, stating that the infringing nature of the Accused Products is "described in the claim chart[s] attached as Exhibit[s] 1-6" (Compl. ¶¶17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47). However, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. In the absence of the claim charts, the infringement analysis is based on the narrative allegations.

For the '937 Patent, the complaint alleges that the LED components within the Accused Products are constructed with a carrier, a semiconductor body, and "reflective or scattering elements" positioned to increase light output in a manner that practices the claimed invention (Compl. ¶17). For the '375 Patent, the complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain electrical contact structures built with distinct "volume" and "surface bonding" regions made of different materials as claimed (Compl. ¶23). Similar allegations of infringement based on the specific structures and methods claimed in the other four patents are made throughout the complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary point of contention will be factual: does the physical construction of the Accused Products actually incorporate the specific structures recited in the patent claims? For example, does the product's LED component contain the '375 patent's claimed contact structure with a volume region and a surface bonding region made of two different materials? This will require discovery and likely reverse engineering of the products.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key terms. For the '937 patent, a question is whether the accused device's reflective structure constitutes a "plurality of reflective or scattering elements" as that term is used in the patent, or if it is a structurally different type of reflector.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term 1 ('937 Patent): "reflective or scattering elements"

    • Context and Importance: The presence, location, and form of these "elements" are central to the core novelty of the '937 patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the feature in the accused product that reflects light qualifies as a plurality of "elements" as construed by the court. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its product uses a simple, uniform mirror layer, not discrete "elements."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests flexibility, noting the elements can be "particles formed in the connection layer" ('937 Patent, col. 3:24-26) or that the interface can be formed by a "structured surface" ('937 Patent, col. 4:16-18), which could support a construction covering various forms of non-uniform reflectors.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments in the patent illustrate distinct structures, such as "periodically arranged structure elements 80 embodied in pyramid-like fashion" ('937 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 9:18-20). This could support a narrower construction limited to discrete, shaped components rather than a simple roughened or uniform mirror.

  • Term 2 ('375 Patent): "surface bonding region being formed from a material that is different from the material of the volume region"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation in claim 1 of the '375 patent requires a composite contact structure. Infringement will hinge on whether the accused product's contacts are monolithic or are constructed with the claimed two-material design. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a very specific structural hurdle for the plaintiff to prove.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's goal is to create contacts suitable for specific bonding methods like thermocompression, which often rely on surface properties ('375 Patent, col. 2:40-44). A plaintiff might argue that any surface coating or treatment applied to a contact to enhance bondability creates a "surface bonding region" of a "different material."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes forming the surface bonding region by applying a "bondable layer" (e.g., gold, copper, or aluminum) onto a volume region, implying two distinct, bulk materials are required ('375 Patent, col. 2:40-44, col. 5:10-14). This could support a narrower construction that excludes mere surface treatments or alloys.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s determination of the following central questions:

  • A primary issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the physical architecture of the LED components in the Spider Farmer products, once revealed through discovery and expert analysis, actually contain the specific, often multi-part, structures required by the asserted patent claims (e.g., the '143 patent’s projecting encapsulation layer or the '375 patent’s two-material contact structure)?
  • A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: How broadly will key claim terms be construed? For instance, can the '937 patent’s "plurality of reflective or scattering elements" read on a uniform mirror layer, or does it require discrete components? Likewise, does the '540 patent’s "compensating layer" require a specific, measurable counter-strain, and how would that be proven? The outcome of claim construction will be critical in shaping the infringement analysis.