DCT

2:18-cv-00012

Philips Lighting North America Corp v. Howard Industries Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00012, S.D. Miss., 01/23/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of Mississippi because Defendant is a Mississippi corporation that has committed acts of patent infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LED lighting fixtures, including their internal driver circuits, infringe five patents related to LED power supply, driver circuitry, and luminaire design.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic circuits that power and control light-emitting diodes (LEDs), a critical component in the modern lighting industry for ensuring efficiency, longevity, and proper operation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of its infringement of U.S. Patents 7,262,559, 6,577,512, and 6,586,890 as early as November 12, 2014, due to notifications sent to Defendant's President. This history forms the basis for Plaintiff's willful infringement allegations for those three patents. For U.S. Patents 8,063,577 and 6,250,774, willfulness allegations are based on notice provided by the filing of the complaint itself. The ’774 and ’890 patents were subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, which are noted on the provided patent documents, but the complaint does not discuss them.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-01-23 ’774 Patent Priority Date
2001-05-25 ’512 Patent Priority Date
2001-06-26 ’774 Patent Issued
2001-12-05 ’890 Patent Priority Date
2002-12-19 ’559 Patent Priority Date
2003-06-10 ’512 Patent Issued
2003-07-01 ’890 Patent Issued
2004-11-29 ’577 Patent Priority Date
2007-08-28 ’559 Patent Issued
2011-11-22 ’577 Patent Issued
2014-11-12 Alleged pre-suit notice of infringement of '559, '512, and '890 patents
2018-01-23 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559 - "LEDs Driver," Issued August 28, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that existing power supplies for LEDs do not precisely regulate current, which can cause undesirable variations in light intensity and even catastrophic failure from excessive forward current, especially given that small voltage changes can cause large current changes in LEDs (’559 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a power supply for an LED light source that provides multiple layers of protection. It includes a power converter for providing regulated power, an LED control switch to manage current flow, and a detection circuit that monitors the LED's operating condition (’559 Patent, col. 2:38-55). Crucially, the control switch is also configured to "clamp a peak of the LED current during an initial loading stage," preventing damaging current surges when a light is first connected or turned on (’559 Patent, col. 2:43-47; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a more robust method for driving LEDs by not only regulating power during normal operation but also actively protecting the LEDs from damaging electrical conditions such as short circuits, open circuits, and initial power-on surges.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 6, 10, and 11 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Claim 6 Elements:
    • A power converter for regulated power (LED current and voltage).
    • An LED control switch to control current flow.
    • A detection circuit providing a signal indicating the LED operating condition.
    • The control switch is also operable to clamp the peak LED current during an initial loading stage.
    • The detection signal has a first level for a "load condition" and a second level for a "short condition or an open condition."
  • Claim 10 Elements:
    • A power converter for regulated power.
    • An LED control switch to control current flow.
    • A current sensor with a differential amplifier and means for adjusting its gain.
    • The control switch is also operable to clamp the peak LED current during an initial loading stage.
  • Claim 11 Elements:
    • A power converter for regulated power.
    • An LED control switch to control current flow.
    • A voltage sensor with a differential amplifier and means for adjusting its gain.
    • The control switch is also operable to clamp the peak LED current during an initial loading stage.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶93).

U.S. Patent No. 6,577,512 - "Power Supply for LEDs," Issued June 10, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that conventional LED power supplies, which often use bulky line-frequency transformers and inefficient current-limiting resistors, are not well-suited for driving a variable number of LEDs with good regulation and efficiency (’512 Patent, col. 1:20-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a more advanced power supply circuit that uses a flyback transformer controlled by a Power Factor Corrector (PFC). The circuit actively regulates the power supplied to the LEDs by using a feedback loop: a current sensor measures the actual current going to the LEDs, a current controller compares this sensed current to a reference signal, and the resulting feedback signal is used by the PFC to adjust the current flow through the transformer, thereby maintaining the desired output (’512 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3). The use of an optocoupler provides electrical isolation between the high-voltage AC input side and the low-voltage DC output side of the circuit (’512 Patent, col. 3:38-41).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for a smaller, more efficient, and more flexible power supply that can precisely control the current to varying numbers of LEDs while also protecting against circuit malfunctions.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 28 and 38 (Compl. ¶98).
  • Claim 28 Elements (incorporating Claim 19):
    • A transformer supplying current to the LEDs.
    • A current sensor for sensing the LED current.
    • A current reference for generating a reference signal.
    • A current controller for comparing the sensed and reference signals to generate a feedback signal.
    • A PFC responsive to the feedback signal, generating a gate drive signal.
    • A transistor responsive to the gate drive signal, generating the transformer control signal.
    • A protective circuit limiting the current to the LEDs.
    • An optocoupler for isolating the current controller from the PFC.
  • Claim 38 Elements:
    • A circuit with a transformer, current sensor, current reference, current controller, PFC, and transistor arranged in a feedback loop similar to Claim 28.
    • A protective circuit limiting the voltage to the LEDs.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶138).

U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890 - "LED Driver Circuit with PWM Output," Issued July 1, 2003

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for dimmable LED driver circuits in applications like automotive lighting. The invention provides a driver circuit using Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) that can operate in both a full-brightness mode (e.g., for a stop light) and a dim mode (e.g., for a tail light) by using a low-frequency oscillator to modulate the power supplied to the LEDs ('890 Patent, col. 2:17-33).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 30 (dependent on Claim 23) (Compl. ¶143).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the driver circuits in the HLED, MINILWPP, and DTDU-LED products, which contain PWM control ICs, infringe by providing power to an LED array via a feedback-controlled circuit that includes an "LED monitor" to detect inoperable conditions (Compl. ¶145-166).

U.S. Patent No. 8,063,577 - "Method and a Driver Circuit for LED Operation," Issued November 22, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a resonant driver circuit for efficiently operating LEDs. The invention uses a resonant capacitor coupled in series with a transformer's primary winding to generate an alternating supply current. The output is rectified and buffered by an inductor selected to provide a substantially constant current to the LEDs, offering a high-efficiency design ('577 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶172).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the resonant converter circuit in the Defendant's XAL products, which includes a resonant capacitor (C9), a transformer (T1), a rectifier (diodes DS1, DS2), and a buffer inductor (L5), infringes the patent (Compl. ¶174-180).

U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774 - "Luminaire," Issued June 26, 2001

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the inefficient use of light in conventional luminaires. The invention describes a luminaire comprising a housing with multiple "lighting units," each containing at least one high-luminous-flux LED chip (at least 5 lumens) and a dedicated optical system. This modular design allows for the creation of precise, narrow beams that can be accurately aimed to illuminate a target object efficiently, with minimal light spillage ('774 Patent, col. 2:30-54).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶186).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's XAL products infringe by being a luminaire containing multiple lighting modules, each with multiple LED chips exceeding 5 lm luminous flux and an optical system, as claimed. The complaint specifically accuses the XAL-5100-LED-MV model of having modules with 60 LED chips each outputting 83.3 lumens (Compl. ¶191, ¶196).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies four series of LED lighting fixtures: the High-bay Linear LED Series ("HLED"), the LED Area Light ("XAL"), the Mini LED Wallpack ("MINILWPP"), and the LED Dusk-to-Dawn Utility ("DTDU-LED") (Compl. ¶15, ¶18, ¶21, ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

These products are described as LED lighting fixtures designed for a wide range of commercial, industrial, and residential applications, such as warehouses, parking lots, street lights, and building perimeters (Compl. ¶15, ¶18, ¶21, ¶24). The complaint alleges that the LED driver circuits within these products were reverse-engineered by a third-party vendor, revealing the use of specific controller ICs like the NXP SSL8516T in the HLED products and the ST L6599 in the XAL products (Compl. ¶17, ¶20). An image from the Defendant's specification sheet is provided for the HLED product. This image depicts a long, rectangular overhead lighting fixture with multiple lenses, suitable for high-bay applications like warehouses (Compl. ¶16). Similarly, an image of an XAL product shows an angular, pole-mounted fixture for outdoor area lighting (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a power converter operable to provide a regulated power including an LED current and an LED voltage; The accused HLED products contain a flyback converter (including transformer T4 and diode D61A) that provides regulated power to the LEDs. ¶32 col. 2:40-42
an LED control switch operable to control a flow of the LED current through the LED light source; Control switch Q31 allegedly controls the flow of current from the flyback converter through the LEDs. ¶33 col. 2:43-45
a detection circuit operable to provide a detection signal indicative of an operating condition of the LED light source associated with the LED voltage, Overcurrent and Overpower Protection circuits within the controller IC (U1) allegedly provide a detection signal based on the LED voltage. ¶34 col. 2:46-51
wherein said LED control switch is further operable to clamp a peak of the LED current during an initial loading stage of the LED light source, The controller IC (U1) and control switch (Q31) are alleged to perform this function via the controller's "soft-start functions." ¶35 col. 3:1-4
wherein the detection signal has a first level representative of a load condition of the LED light source, and The Overcurrent and Overpower Protection circuits allegedly output a first level signal when an overcurrent/overpower condition is not present. ¶36 col. 3:5-7
wherein the detection signal has a second level representative of either a short condition or an open condition of the LED light source. The same protection circuits allegedly output a second level signal when an overcurrent/overpower condition (equated with a short condition) is present. ¶36 col. 3:7-10

U.S. Patent No. 6,577,512 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 28) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a transformer, the transformer supplying current to the LEDs and being responsive to a transformer control signal; Transformer T4 in the accused HLED products supplies current to the LEDs and is responsive to a control signal from switch Q31. ¶102 col. 3:1-3
a current sensor for sensing current to the LEDs, the current sensor generating a sensed current signal; Current sense resistor R63 allegedly senses the LED current and generates a proportional signal. ¶103 col. 4:44-46
a current reference for generating a reference current signal; A circuit formed by DIM+ and resistors R82, R76, R77, and R78 allegedly generates a reference signal. ¶104 col. 4:50-54
a current controller for comparing the sensed current signal to the reference current signal, the current controller generating a feedback signal; Current controller U62B allegedly compares the sensed and reference signals and generates a feedback signal at its output. ¶105 col. 3:33-38
a PFC responsive to the feedback signal, the PFC generating a gate drive signal; The PFC U1 allegedly receives the feedback signal and, in response, generates a gate drive signal. ¶106 col. 3:9-12
a transistor responsive to the gate drive signal, the transistor generating the transformer control signal; Switch Q31 is allegedly driven by the gate drive signal and in turn generates the control signal for transformer T4. ¶107 col. 4:46-50
a protective circuit limiting the current to the LEDs. Overcurrent and Overpower Protection circuits within PFC U1 are alleged to limit current to the LEDs. ¶108 col. 1:4-6
an optocoupler for isolating the current controller from the PFC. Optocoupler U31 allegedly isolates the current controller U62B from the PFC U1. ¶109 col. 3:38-41
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the ’559 Patent equates a controller's "soft-start function" with the claim limitation "clamp a peak of the LED current" (Compl. ¶35). A central dispute may be whether a gradual current ramp-up (a typical soft-start) meets the definition of "clamping a peak," which could imply a more aggressive action of capping an otherwise-present current spike. Similarly, the complaint maps general "Overcurrent Protection" to the claim's requirement for a "detection signal" with two distinct levels for different fault conditions (Compl. ¶36), raising the question of whether the accused circuit's functionality is coextensive with the claim's specific requirements.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’512 Patent, the claim requires a "PFC responsive to the feedback signal." The complaint alleges the accused PFC U1 generates a gate drive signal in response to the feedback signal from the LED current controller (Compl. ¶106). The defense may argue that the PFC's primary role is power factor correction based on the AC line input, and that it is not "responsive" to the LED current feedback signal in the manner claimed, but rather uses it as a simple timing or enable input for its pre-existing switching operations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’559 Patent:

    • The Term: "clamp a peak of the LED current"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint's infringement theory relies on mapping this function to the "soft-start functions" of a standard controller IC (Compl. ¶35, ¶55). The definition will determine whether a function that gradually ramps up current is equivalent to a function that actively prevents a current spike from exceeding a threshold.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract broadly refers to the switch being "further operable to clamp a peak of the LED current during an initial loading stage," without specifying a particular mechanism. This could support an argument that any function limiting initial current, including a soft-start, falls within the scope.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the control switch (SW1) is turned on and off, and "When the LED current exceeds the desired peak, the switch SW1 is turned off" (’559 Patent, col. 4:48-49). This language suggests an active, threshold-based shut-off mechanism, which may be construed as distinct from a pre-programmed, gradual ramp-up.

  • For the ’512 Patent:

    • The Term: "PFC responsive to the feedback signal"
    • Context and Importance: The entire feedback control loop described in Claim 28 hinges on the Power Factor Corrector (PFC) being responsive to the signal generated by the current controller. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue the accused PFC is primarily responsive to the AC line voltage for its main function, and that its interaction with the LED current feedback signal is incidental or does not rise to the level of "responsiveness" required by the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The schematic in Figure 3 shows the output of the optocoupler (132), which carries the feedback signal, connected directly to the PFC (128). This direct electrical connection supports the argument that the PFC is inherently responsive to the signal it receives.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section discusses the need to "precisely regulate the LED current" (’512 Patent, col. 1:47-48). A party could argue that "responsive" requires the PFC to actively modulate its operation to achieve this precise regulation, and if the accused PFC uses the feedback signal merely as an on/off or timing input without altering its core power-factor-correcting behavior, it may not meet this narrower construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the substantive counts of the complaint focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the prayer for relief broadly seeks an injunction and damages for inducing and contributing to infringement (Compl. ¶201(b)).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint explicitly alleges willful infringement for all five patents. For the '559, '512, and '890 patents, the allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge from alleged notifications of infringement sent to Defendant’s President on November 12, 2014 (Compl. ¶96, ¶141, ¶170). For the '577 and '774 patents, the allegation is based on knowledge obtained "at least as early as the service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶184, ¶201).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical equivalence: Can the specific protective functions recited in the '559 patent, such as to "clamp a peak" of current and generate a two-level fault signal, be read onto the more generic "soft-start" and "overcurrent protection" features of the off-the-shelf controller ICs allegedly used in Defendant's products?
  • A second key question will be the interpretation of functional relationships in the '512 patent: Is the accused Power Factor Corrector (PFC) truly "responsive to the feedback signal" from the LED current controller in the manner required by the claim, thereby forming an integrated feedback loop, or does it operate largely independently for its primary purpose of power factor correction?
  • An overarching evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff's infringement theories, based on reverse engineering and component datasheets, accurately reflect the real-world operation of the accused products. The court will need to determine if the accused circuits, as a whole, actually function in the specific ways claimed by the patents-in-suit.