DCT

2:22-cv-00088

Litepanels Ltd v. Godox Photo Equipment Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00088, E.D. Tex., 03/16/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that has committed acts of infringement in the district by offering for sale and selling its products to consumers and distributors in Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LED-based photographic lighting products infringe three expired U.S. patents related to the design and functionality of stand-mounted light panels.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves LED lighting systems for professional film, television, and photography, a field where heat output, power efficiency, and precise control over color temperature and brightness are critical for image capture.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that all asserted patents have expired and seeks damages for infringement occurring within the six-year statutory period prior to the complaint's filing. The complaint also references a claim construction ruling from prior litigation in the same district (Litepanels, LTD, et al v. Flolight, LLC), where the term "frame" was construed as a "supporting structure," a point that may be relevant to the present case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-09-07 Earliest Priority Date for '652, '290, and '022 Patents
2008-01-15 U.S. Patent No. 7,318,652 Issues
2009-03-31 U.S. Patent No. 7,510,290 Issues
2011-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,972,022 Issues
2022-03-16 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,972,022 - "Stand-Mounted Light Panel For Natural Illumination in Film, Television or Video"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,972,022, "Stand-Mounted Light Panel For Natural Illumination in Film, Television or Video," issued July 5, 2011 (the '022 Patent). (Compl. ¶15).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the drawbacks of traditional incandescent and fluorescent lighting used in film and photography, which include excessive heat generation, high power consumption, and undesirable shifts in color hue when the light intensity is adjusted ('290 Patent, col. 1:11 - col. 2:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a lighting apparatus using semiconductor light elements, such as LEDs, mounted on a frame. This configuration provides a continuous source of illumination with user-adjustable intensity via a dimmer, while maintaining a color temperature suitable for image capture (specifically, "daylight" or "tungsten" ranges), all within a device adapted for mounting on a stand ('290 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a cooler, more power-efficient, and color-stable lighting solution compared to the incumbent technologies, offering greater flexibility and control for cinematographers and photographers ('290 Patent, col. 2:54-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • An apparatus for illuminating a subject for film, photography or video.
    • A frame having a front.
    • A plurality of semiconductor light elements on the frame's front, providing continuous illumination with a color temperature suitable for image capture, with at least one element emitting in a daylight or tungsten color temperature range.
    • A dimmer to allow user adjustment of illumination intensity.
    • The frame is adapted for being mounted to and readily disengaged from a stand.

U.S. Patent No. 7,318,652 - "Versatile Stand-Mounted Wide Area Lighting Apparatus"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,318,652, "Versatile Stand-Mounted Wide Area Lighting Apparatus," issued January 18, 2008 (the '652 Patent). (Compl. ¶29).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problems as the '022 Patent: the heat, inefficiency, and color-instability of conventional incandescent and fluorescent lighting systems in professional imaging applications ('652 Patent, col. 1:11 - col. 2:67).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented solution is a portable, stand-mountable lighting system using semiconductor light elements that offer specific color temperatures (daylight or tungsten). A key distinction of this patent is the inclusion of "a focusing element for adjusting the focus and/or direction of the light," which provides an additional layer of control over the light beam ('652 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:15-18).
  • Technical Importance: The invention combined the benefits of LED lighting (low heat, efficiency, dimmability) with optical control, allowing users not only to set the intensity and color temperature but also to shape or direct the light output.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • A lighting system for illuminating a subject in film or video.
    • A portable frame with a panel including a mounting surface.
    • A plurality of semiconductor light elements on the mounting surface, emitting light in a color temperature range suitable for image capture, with at least one element emitting in a daylight or tungsten range.
    • A focusing element for adjusting the focus and/or direction of the light.
    • The portable frame is adapted for being mounted to and readily disengaged from a stand.

U.S. Patent No. 7,510,290 - "Stand-Mounted Light Panel For Natural Illumination in Film, Television or Video"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,510,290, "Stand-Mounted Light Panel For Natural Illumination in Film, Television or Video," issued March 31, 2009 (the '290 Patent). (Compl. ¶43).
  • Technology Synopsis: The '290 Patent discloses a stand-mountable LED light panel designed to overcome the heat, power, and color-shift issues of traditional lighting ('290 Patent, col. 1:11-col. 2:67). The invention's solution is an apparatus with dimmable semiconductor light elements of specific color temperatures, distinguished by the inclusion of a "stand adapter bracket" that "comprises a yoke for mounting said frame" and allows the frame to "swivel and/or tilt" ('290 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused products, exemplified by the LED1000, infringe by incorporating a frame with LEDs, a dimmer, and a stand adapter mount with a yoke that permits the light to be tilted and angled (Compl. ¶¶ 47-54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses numerous Godox product lines of infringement, including the CL, LC, LD, LF, LR, LED, LEDP, LEDM, E-Sports, Flexible, FV, Macro, ML, Mini Creative, S, SL, SL series II, SLB, SZ, Tube, UL, VL, and VSA series (Compl. ¶12). The Godox "LED1000II" product is identified as an exemplary accused product (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as LED lighting devices used for illuminating subjects for film, photography, or video (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 19). Based on allegations and supporting visuals, the exemplary LED1000 product includes a frame with an array of LEDs on its front surface, providing a continuous source of illumination (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21). The complaint includes an image of the rear of the Godox LED1000II, showing controls including a knob and a digital display for adjusting brightness and color temperature (Compl. ¶24, p. 9). The product is advertised in versions that emit light at specific "daylight" (5600K) or "tungsten" (3300K) color temperatures, as well as a "changeable version" that operates between those ranges (Compl. ¶23). It is designed to be mounted on a stand and includes a yoke for adjusting the panel's angle (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 54). The complaint characterizes the accused products as "knock-off" variations of Plaintiff's products in the U.S. market (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

7,972,022 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a frame having a front The LED1000 includes a "supporting structure" from which light is emitted. ¶20 col. 8:15-18
a plurality of semiconductor light elements disposed on the front of the frame and configured to provide a continuous source of illumination...at least one of said...elements...emitting light in a daylight color temperature range or a tungsten color temperature range The LED1000 contains an array of LEDs that provides illumination and is available in "white" (5600K daylight), "yellow" (3300K tungsten), or "changeable" versions. ¶¶21, 23 col. 8:19-27
a dimmer whereby an illumination intensity of said semiconductor light elements may be user adjusted The LED1000 has a user-adjusted knob to control brightness from 100% to 0%. ¶24 col. 8:28-30
wherein said frame is adapted for being mounted to and readily disengaged from a stand The LED1000 is shown in website images mounted on a stand and includes adjustable knobs to allow it to be mounted and removed. ¶25 col. 8:31-33
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether the term "stand" as used in the patent reads on the specific mounting equipment used with the accused products. However, the complaint's inclusion of an image showing the LED1000 mounted on a conventional light stand suggests this may not be a significant point of dispute (Compl. ¶25, p. 9).
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory for the '022 Patent appears to map directly onto the advertised features of the accused product. The complaint notes that the term "frame" has already been construed in a prior case, which may limit the scope for disagreement on that element (Compl. ¶20, n.6).

7,318,652 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a portable frame having a panel including a mounting surface The LED1000 is advertised as portable and versatile, and has a frame with a panel for mounting light elements. ¶34 col. 7:6-8
a plurality of semiconductor light elements disposed on said mounting surface... at least one of said...elements emitting light in a daylight or tungsten color temperature range The LED1000 contains an array of LEDs and is available in "white" (5600K daylight), "yellow" (3300K tungsten), or "changeable" versions. ¶¶35, 37 col. 7:9-14
a focusing element for adjusting the focus and/or direction of the light emitted by said semiconductor light elements Each LED bulb on the LED1000 has an "integral lens cap" which allegedly constitutes an optical focusing element. ¶38 col. 7:15-18
wherein said portable frame is adapted for being mounted to and readily disengaged from a stand The LED1000 is shown in images mounted on a stand with adjustable knobs that allow it to be readily disengaged. ¶39 col. 7:19-21
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary dispute for the '652 Patent will likely concern the claim element "a focusing element." The complaint's theory is that the "integral lens cap" on each individual LED bulb satisfies this limitation (Compl. ¶38). A defendant may argue that this integral part of the LED itself is not a separate "element for adjusting the focus" as contemplated by the patent's specification, which illustrates focusing elements as separate components like wave guides or collective lens sheets placed over the LEDs ('652 Patent, FIG. 8; col. 14:36-44).
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's "integral lens cap" performs the function of "adjusting the focus and/or direction" of the light. The complaint supports this allegation with a visual showing different LED versions but does not detail how the lens cap adjusts the light output (Compl. p. 13).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'022 Patent

  • The Term: "frame"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary structural component of the claimed apparatus. Its scope is fundamental to the infringement analysis for all three asserted patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint preemptively notes that it was construed in prior litigation in the same court as a "supporting structure," potentially limiting the grounds for dispute (Compl. ¶20, n.6).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint relies on the prior construction of "supporting structure," which is a broad, functional definition ('022 Patent, col. 8:15-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the prior construction may be persuasive, a party could still look to specific embodiments, such as the ring-shaped frame of Figure 4, to argue for a more limited interpretation in a different factual context ('290 Patent, Fig. 4).

'652 Patent

  • The Term: "a focusing element for adjusting the focus and/or direction of the light"
  • Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term is critical to the infringement allegation against the '652 Patent. The Plaintiff's case depends on construing this term to include an integral component of an LED, while a defendant would likely argue it requires a separate, adjustable component.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "a focusing element" without explicitly requiring it to be separate from the "semiconductor light elements."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples of a "focusing element" include a "wave guide" placed over an LED and a "collective lens" placed over a light segment, both of which are depicted as distinct components from the light elements themselves ('652 Patent, FIG. 7, FIG. 8; col. 14:28-44). The patent also describes an "adjustable lens" that can be positioned to "alter a characteristic of the light" (Claim 35), which may suggest that "adjusting" requires more than the static focusing provided by an integral lens cap.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges indirect infringement through inducement and/or contributory infringement for "certain VL and VSA products," but does not provide a specific factual basis for knowledge or intent, such as through user manuals or specific marketing materials (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 31, 45).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead facts supporting willfulness, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief requests enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, which provides a basis for a willfulness claim that may develop during discovery, potentially based on post-suit conduct (Compl. ¶18.C).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "focusing element," which the '652 Patent specification illustrates with separate, add-on components like wave guides and collective lenses, be construed to cover the "integral lens cap" that is a standard, non-adjustable part of the accused product's individual LED packages?
  • A key procedural question will be one of judicial consistency: to what extent will the court adopt the construction of "frame" from the prior Flolight litigation? An affirmative answer could significantly narrow the scope of claim construction disputes for all three asserted patents.
  • As all asserted patents have expired, the case centers on monetary damages. A central dispute will likely be the determination of a reasonable royalty for past infringement, particularly in light of Plaintiff's characterization of the accused products as "knock-offs" of its own commercially successful and award-winning technology.