DCT

1:24-cv-01097

Allanson Lighting Tech Inc v. Chikee Electrical Motor & Appliance Industrial Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01097, W.D.N.Y., 11/14/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Western District of New York on the basis that Defendant is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s recessed LED downlight products infringe three utility patents and two design patents related to lighting fixtures designed for thermal management and specific mounting configurations.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-illumination, recessed LED lighting fixtures, particularly those suitable for harsh environments like commercial kitchen exhaust hoods, which require effective heat dissipation and specific mounting structures for serviceability.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was the primary supplier of LED light fixtures to a major customer, CaptiveAire Inc., since 2018. In May 2023, CaptiveAire allegedly informed Plaintiff it was switching to a Chinese supplier, later identified as Defendant. On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff sent a letter to CaptiveAire identifying the patents that are now asserted in this lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-04-23 Earliest Priority Date Claimed by Utility Patents-in-Suit
2019-06-04 U.S. Design Patent D850,695 Issues
2020-10-13 U.S. Patent 10,801,680 Issues
2021-06-01 U.S. Design Patent D921,268 Issues
2022-07-12 U.S. Patent 11,384,909 Issues
2023-05-01 Plaintiff's customer allegedly switches to Defendant
2023-05-09 U.S. Patent 11,644,162 Issues
2023-12-13 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant's customer
2024-07-18 Plaintiff obtains samples of the accused product
2024-11-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,801,680 - “LED Lighting Fixture,” issued October 13, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of designing high-illumination LED lighting, which generates significant heat that must be dissipated, for applications where the fixture is mounted in a surface that is not easily accessible, such as a commercial kitchen fume hood (’680 Patent, col. 2:45-54). Such fixtures must be self-contained, meet regulatory requirements, and allow for relatively easy and safe maintenance or replacement (’680 Patent, col. 2:54-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part lighting fixture. A "mounting housing," which includes a junction box for electrical connections and radially extending heat dissipation fins, is recessed behind a mounting panel (’680 Patent, col. 2:36-44, 60-62). A separate "light housing," containing the LED emitter board and a lens, is then mechanically and electrically coupled to the mounting housing (’680 Patent, Abstract). This modular design is intended to facilitate effective heat dissipation behind the panel while allowing the light-generating component to be more easily serviced (’680 Patent, col. 4:59-64).
  • Technical Importance: This design addresses the concurrent needs for thermal management, electrical safety, and serviceability in high-output recessed LED fixtures used in demanding commercial environments (’680 Patent, col. 2:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts Independent Claim 12 (Compl. ¶57).
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 12 include:
    • A mounting housing for a lighting fixture.
    • A junction box with an opening for conductors.
    • A flange extending from the mounting housing's exterior, with one face for mating against a light housing and an opposing face for abutting the exterior of a fume hood.
    • A plurality of heat dissipation fins extending from the junction box's exterior toward the flange's inner perimeter, with the fins being disposed within that inner perimeter.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶56).

U.S. Patent No. 11,384,909 - “Lighting Fixture,” issued July 12, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’680 patent, this patent addresses the same technical challenges of heat dissipation and serviceability for recessed LED fixtures (’909 Patent, col. 1:21-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is again a two-part fixture comprising a "first housing" (the mounting assembly) and a "second housing" (the light assembly) (’909 Patent, Abstract). The claims of the ’909 patent place particular emphasis on the structural relationship of the components of the first housing, requiring that the junction box, the first flange, and the heat dissipation fins are "integral" with the first housing (’909 Patent, col. 8:59-62).
  • Technical Importance: This claimed configuration aims to provide a robust, single-piece mounting structure that optimizes thermal transfer and simplifies installation (’909 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts Independent Claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶62).

  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:

    • A lighting fixture with a first housing and a mountable second housing.
    • The first housing comprises a junction box, a first flange, and a plurality of heat dissipation fins.
    • The second housing comprises a second flange complementary to the first flange.
    • A concluding limitation requires that "the junction box, the first flange and the plurality of heat dissipation fins are integral within the first housing."

  • Independent Claim 11 is directed to the "mounting housing" component itself, containing a similar "integral" limitation. The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶61).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,644,162

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,644,162, "Lighting Fixture," issued May 9, 2023.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation in the same family and describes a similar two-part lighting fixture. The claims focus on a mounting housing with an integral junction box, flange, and heat fins, and further specify that the aperture and perimeters of the flange are circular and have a diameter (’162 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:1-12).
    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶67).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused product's two-part housing, including its integral mounting structure with a junction box, flange, and heat fins, infringes the ’162 patent (Compl. pp. 18-19).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D850,695

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D850,695, "Lighting Fixture," issued June 4, 2019.
    • Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a lighting fixture, which includes a circular body with a raised, box-like central housing and a radial array of heat fins (D'695 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design shown (Compl. ¶72).
    • Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of the accused product is alleged to be substantially similar to the claimed design (Compl. ¶73). A side-by-side visual comparison is provided in the complaint (Compl. p. 21).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D921,268

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D921,268, "Lighting Fixture," issued June 1, 2021.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an ornamental design for a lighting fixture that is similar to the D'695 patent but shows different proportions and features, with portions of the fixture depicted in broken lines to indicate they do not form part of the claimed design (D'268 Patent, Figs. 1-8).
    • Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design shown (Compl. ¶78).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the visual appearance of the accused product is substantially similar to the claimed design (Compl. ¶¶77-78). A visual comparison is provided (Compl. p. 23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Chikee Recessed LED Downlight," specifically including Model No. VRT380-16W-120V-WD (Compl. ¶18).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused product as a recessed LED downlight fixture sold in bulk quantities for use in commercial and industrial facilities (Compl. ¶21). Plaintiff alleges the product incorporates its "innovative heat dissipation system, specialized mounting mechanism, and proprietary optical design" and that these features are "fundamental to the fixture's performance, efficiency, and suitability for kitchen exhaust hood applications" (Compl. ¶20). An image provided in the complaint shows the rear of the accused product, revealing a central housing, wiring, and radiating heat fins (Compl. p. 6). The complaint also alleges Defendant is "marketing and selling the accused products at significantly lower prices, undercutting Allanson in the market" (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'680 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A mounting housing for a lighting fixture, the mounting housing comprising: The Chikee light fixture includes a mounting housing for a lighting fixture. ¶57, p. 13 col. 2:36-37
a junction box having at least one opening for receiving conductors; The Chikee light fixture includes a junction box having at least one opening for receiving conductors. ¶57, p. 13 col. 6:52-54
a flange extending from an exterior of the mounting housing, the flange for retaining the mounting housing against an exterior surface surrounding an aperture in a fume hood, the flange defining an inner perimeter and an outer perimeter, the flange comprising a first face for mating against a complementary flange of a light housing, and an opposing second face... The Chikee light fixture includes a flange extending from an exterior of the mounting housing, the flange for retaining the mounting housing against an exterior surface surrounding an aperture in a fume hood, the flange defining an inner perimeter and an outer perimeter, the flange comprising a first face for mating against a complementary flange of a light housing, and an opposing second face... ¶57, p. 13 col. 6:45-51
a plurality of heat dissipation fins each extending from an exterior of the junction box toward the inner perimeter of the flange of the mounting housing, the plurality of heat dissipation fins being disposed within the inner perimeter. The Chikee light fixture includes a plurality of heat dissipation fins each extending from an exterior of the junction box toward the inner perimeter of the flange of the mounting housing, the plurality of heat dissipation fins being disposed within the inner perimeter. ¶57, p. 14 col. 6:60-65

'909 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A lighting fixture for mounting into an aperture in a panel, the lighting fixture comprising: a first housing, comprising: a junction box... a first flange... and a plurality of heat dissipation fins... The Chikee light fixture is a lighting fixture for mounting into an aperture in a panel. The Chikee light fixture includes a first housing. The Chikee light fixture includes a junction box... a first flange... and a plurality of heat dissipation fins... ¶62, p. 15 col. 8:35-54
a second housing comprising a second flange complementary to the first face of the first flange, the second housing being mountable to the first housing; The Chikee light fixture includes a second housing comprising a second flange complementary to the first face of the first flange, the second housing being mountable to the first housing. ¶62, p. 15 col. 8:55-58
wherein the junction box, the first flange and the plurality of heat dissipation fins are integral within the first housing. The junction box, the first flange and the plurality of heat dissipation fins of the Chikee light fixture are integral within the first housing. ¶62, p. 16 col. 8:59-62
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The ’680 patent claims a fixture for use in a "fume hood" (Compl. ¶57). An issue may arise as to whether this term limits the scope of infringement only to products sold for or used in fume hoods, or if the term is merely descriptive of a preferred environment. The complaint alleges Defendant competes for sales to a "kitchen exhaust hoods" supplier, which aligns with the claim language (Compl. ¶13).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for the ’909 and ’162 patents hinges on the term "integral." The complaint provides a photograph of the rear of the accused product, which shows the junction box, flange, and fins appearing as a single, continuous metal casting (Compl. p. 6). The central question for the court will be whether the accused product is, in fact, constructed as a single, unitary piece consistent with the claim term "integral." For the design patents, the complaint presents side-by-side comparisons of the accused product and patent drawings, which will require the court to apply the "ordinary observer" test (Compl. pp. 21, 23).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "integral" (as in "the junction box, the first flange and the plurality of heat dissipation fins are integral within the first housing") (’909 Patent, cl. 1).
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims of both the ’909 and ’162 patents. Its construction is critical to the infringement analysis for those patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a multi-piece bolted or welded assembly could infringe, or if the claim is limited to a single, unitary component, such as one made from a single casting.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not provide an explicit definition of "integral." A party arguing for a broader scope might contend that "integral" means the components are formed into a single, inseparable functional unit, not necessarily that they originate from a single piece of material.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, which is shared across the patent family, states that the "mounting housing is preferably formed from cast aluminium" (’680 Patent, col. 2:65-66). This suggests a process that creates a single, unitary piece. Furthermore, Figure 6 of the patents depicts the junction box (30), flange (26), and fins (38) as a seamless, continuous structure, which may support an interpretation that "integral" means formed as a single, monolithic part.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of" the asserted patents (Compl. ¶b, p. 24). However, the body of the complaint does not appear to allege specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement "has been, and will continue to be, willful" and that Defendant "lacks any reasonable invalidity or non-infringement defense" (Compl. ¶81). The complaint does not allege that Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice of infringement directly to Defendant. It does, however, allege that Plaintiff sent a letter identifying the patents-in-suit to Defendant's U.S. customer, CaptiveAire, on December 13, 2023 (Compl. ¶24).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and factual proof: can the term "integral", as used in the ’909 and ’162 patents, be construed to cover anything other than a single, monolithic piece? The resolution will depend on how the court interprets the patent's language and figures, and on the physical evidence of how the accused product is actually manufactured.
  2. A second key question will be one of design similarity: for the two asserted design patents, would an ordinary observer, viewing the accused Chikee product in the context of the prior art, be deceived into believing it is the patented Allanson design? The side-by-side comparisons in the complaint frame this as a primary visual dispute.
  3. A significant legal and factual question regarding damages will be willfulness: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to establish that Defendant had knowledge of the patents and a high likelihood of infringement, particularly given that the only pre-suit notice alleged in the complaint was sent to Defendant's customer, not directly to Defendant itself?