DCT

2:25-cv-01045

Lombard v. Lumen Labs HK Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01045, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign company and not a resident of the United States.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of smart bicycle helmets infringes eight U.S. patents related to integrated helmet lighting systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the integration of light sources, power systems, and control electronics within the layered structure of a protective helmet to enhance rider visibility and safety.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of alleged infringement on multiple occasions prior to filing suit, beginning on June 1, 2022, and identified several of the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-03 Earliest Priority Date ('333, '336, '261, '045, '444 Patents)
2013-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,608,333 Issues
2015-06-09 Earliest Priority Date ('864, '387, '870 Patents)
2018-07-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,030,864 Issues
2018-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,039,336 Issues
2022-04-05 U.S. Patent No. 11,291,261 Issues
2022-06-01 Plaintiff alleges sending first written notice letter to Defendant
2022-07-08 Plaintiff alleges sending second written notice letter to Defendant
2023-08-08 U.S. Patent No. 11,717,045 Issues
2024-01-09 U.S. Patent No. 11,867,387 Issues
2024-03-20 Plaintiff alleges sending third written notice letter to Defendant
2025-05-27 U.S. Patent No. 12,310,444 Issues
2025-10-07 U.S. Patent No. 12,435,870 Issues
2026-01-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,608,333 - *"Helmet Lighting System"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Existing helmets with lighting systems are described as being generally directed toward recreational use and are often heavy, bulky, provide low levels of light, and have short operational times, making them unsuitable for more demanding environments (U.S. Patent No. 8,608,333, col. 1:11-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses integrating a lighting system into the structure of the helmet itself. The system is built upon a "first layer" (e.g., the structural helmet shell), to which light sources and a controller are mounted. A "second layer" is then "fixably attached" to the first, creating a protected, waterproof area between the two layers to house the electronics and wiring (U.S. Patent No. 8,608,333, col. 2:37-44, Fig. 3). A power source is attached to this second layer to power the system (U.S. Patent No. 8,608,333, col. 4:3-6).
  • Technical Importance: This layered construction approach provided a method for embedding electronics directly into a helmet's structure in a way that could be sealed against the elements, a key requirement for reliable use in demanding applications.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’333 Patent, using independent claim 1 as an example (Compl. ¶¶14-17).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • A helmet with an integrated lighting system
    • A "first layer"
    • Light emitting means mounted to the first layer
    • Controller means mounted to the first layer
    • Wiring means linking the components
    • A "second layer fixably attached to said first layer" that provides an "area between" the layers for the components
    • Power means "fixably attached to said second layer"
    • Operating means linked to the controller

U.S. Patent No. 10,039,336 - *"Helmet Lighting System"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same deficiencies in prior art helmet lighting systems as the '333 Patent: unsuitability for demanding environments due to factors like weight, bulk, low light emission, and short operational life (’336 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that of the ’333 Patent, describing a lighting system integrated between a "first layer" and a "second layer" of a helmet to create a protected space for the electronic components (’336 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-44). The specification also discloses a flexible version of the lighting system, contained in a shell of latex or similar material, that can be fitted over an existing helmet (’336 Patent, col. 2:6-23).
  • Technical Importance: This patent continues the theme of creating a sealed, integrated lighting system within a helmet's structure, while also introducing the concept of a flexible, retrofittable lighting shell.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’336 Patent, using independent claim 1 as the primary example (Compl. ¶¶28-31).
  • Claim 1 of the '336 patent is identical in language to Claim 1 of the '333 patent, reciting:
    • A helmet with an integrated lighting system
    • A "first layer" and a "second layer fixably attached" to it, creating an "area between" them
    • Light emitting means, controller means, and wiring means housed in this area
    • Power means "fixably attached to said second layer"
    • Operating means linked to the controller

U.S. Patent No. 11,291,261 - *"Helmet Lighting System"*

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same inventive theme, this patent describes a helmet lighting system integrated between a first and second layer. The claims focus on the structural arrangement of the components, including the location of the power source and circuit board on a rear portion of the helmet ('261 Patent, Abstract; claim 9).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 9 (Compl. ¶¶42-48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the general construction and component layout of the Lumos Kickstart, Kickstart Lite, Matrix, Street, Ultra, Ultra E-Bike, and Nyxel products infringe (Compl. ¶¶42-48).

U.S. Patent No. 11,717,045 - *"Helmet Lighting System"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also relates to a multi-layered helmet with integrated lighting. Its claims specify arrangements of light emitting devices into strips and configurations for displaying turn signals and stop signals based on instructions from a vehicle's signaling mechanism ('045 Patent, Abstract; claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶¶59-65).
  • Accused Features: The overall lighting system and its signaling functionality in various Lumos helmets are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶¶59-65).

U.S. Patent No. 12,310,444 - *"Helmet Lighting System"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the '333 and '336 patents. It claims a helmet with an integrated lighting system comprising first and second layers that create a space for electronic components ('444 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶76-78).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Lumos Ultra, Ultra E-Bike, Nyxel, Matrix, and Street products of infringing by their fundamental construction (Compl. ¶¶76-79).

U.S. Patent No. 10,030,864 - *"Helmets with Lighting and Lighting Systems for Helmets"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a lighting system for a helmet comprising distinct "light pods" and "light strips." The system includes enclosures for these components that are sealed to prevent water ingress and are configured to be attached to an underlying helmet ('864 Patent, Abstract; claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶89-91).
  • Accused Features: The lighting configurations on the Lumos Ultra, Ultra E-Bike, and Matrix products are alleged to meet these claim limitations (Compl. ¶¶89-91).

U.S. Patent No. 11,867,387 - *"Helmets with Lighting and Lighting Systems for Helmets"*

  • Technology Synopsis: A continuation of the '864 patent family, this patent further describes helmet lighting systems constructed as modules or with distinct "pods" and "strips." The claims focus on the encapsulated, waterproof nature of these lighting components and their attachment to a helmet ('387 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 6 (Compl. ¶¶102-108).
  • Accused Features: The lighting systems of numerous Lumos products are accused of infringement, including the Ultra, Ultra E-Bike, Nyxel, Kickstart, Kickstart Lite, Matrix, and Street models (Compl. ¶¶102-109).

U.S. Patent No. 12,435,870 - *"Helmets with Lighting and Lighting Systems for Helmets"*

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is also in the '864 family, directed to waterproof lighting systems for helmets comprising encapsulated "light pods" and "light strips." Claim elements detail the sealed interior space of the component enclosures ('870 Patent, Abstract; claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Claims 1 and 6 (Compl. ¶¶119-121).
  • Accused Features: The lighting systems of the Lumos Ultra, Ultra E-Bike, and Nyxel products are accused of infringing these claims (Compl. ¶¶119-121).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the Lumos Kickstart, Lumos Kickstart Lite, Lumos Ultra, Lumos Ultra E-Bike, Lumos Nyxel, Lumos Matrix, and Lumos Street products (Compl. ¶6).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused products as helmets that include lighting systems (Compl. ¶8). It alleges that Defendant offers for sale and sells these products in the United States through its website and online marketplaces such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of the accused products' functionality, instead alleging that their construction and operation infringe the asserted patents as demonstrated in claim charts incorporated as exhibits (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits that purport to demonstrate infringement. The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

'333 and '336 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused Lumos helmets, such as the Kickstart and Ultra models, directly infringe claim 1 of both the ’333 and ’336 patents (Compl. ¶¶14, 28). The narrative theory suggests that the accused products embody the claimed invention by having a multi-layer helmet construction. This construction allegedly includes a first structural layer and a second layer fixedly attached to it, creating a sealed space in between. The complaint’s theory is that the products’ light sources (LEDs), controllers, and wiring are housed within this space, with a power source (battery) attached to the second layer and operated by external buttons, thereby meeting all elements of the asserted independent claims (Compl. ¶¶14-17, 28-31).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be how the claim term "a second layer fixably attached to said first layer" is construed. The dispute could turn on whether the accused helmets' manufacturing process—which may involve embedding electronics into a single molded shell with liners—can be characterized as creating two distinct, "fixably attached" layers as described in the patents, or whether it represents a different, non-infringing construction.
  • Technical Questions: The location of the power source may be a point of contention. The claims require "power means fixably attached to said second layer." Evidence will be required to determine if the battery in the accused products is attached to what is identified as the "second layer" in the manner disclosed in the patent specification, which is required for this means-plus-function limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a first layer" and "a second layer fixably attached to said first layer"
  • Context and Importance: This structural language is the foundation of independent claim 1 in the '333 and '336 patents. The entire infringement analysis for these patents hinges on whether the physical construction of the accused helmets maps onto this specific two-part, layered structure that creates an "area between" for housing electronics. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core physical architecture of the claimed invention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the first layer as a "moldable plastic type material" such as polycarbonate or carbon fiber, and the second layer as a "transparent material such as polycarbonate" ('333 Patent, col. 3:40-44, 60-63). This could support an interpretation where "layers" refers to any two distinct structural or cosmetic shells of a helmet that are joined together, such as a main structural shell and a separate decorative or protective outer shell.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's description of the second layer being bonded to the first "about its edges" to create a "waterproof seal" ('333 Patent, col. 4:1-3) could support a narrower construction requiring a specific clam-shell type assembly that fully encloses a space, rather than any two laminated layers. The related '864 patent describes a process of vacuum-forming separate inner and outer shells and then sealing their flanges together, which could be used to argue for a more limited definition of the claimed structure ('864 Patent, col. 11:50-54).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on Defendant selling the accused products and "instructing its customers to use the products when riding bicycles, as shown on Defendant's webpage" (Compl. ¶¶18, 32, 49). This suggests that the use of the helmets as intended constitutes direct infringement, which Defendant knowingly encourages.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of the '333, '336, and '261 patents on June 1, 2022, and provided further notice and infringement examples on other dates (Compl. ¶10). The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of its infringement and continued its conduct despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement (Compl. ¶¶19, 33, 50).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural interpretation: Does the integrated manufacturing process of the accused Lumos helmets result in a structure that meets the specific claim limitation of "a first layer" and "a second layer fixably attached" to create a distinct "area between" for housing electronic components, or is it a fundamentally different, non-infringing unibody design?
  • A key question of claim scope will concern the means-plus-function limitation "power means fixably attached to said second layer." The dispute may turn on whether the placement and mounting method of the battery within the accused helmets is structurally equivalent to the specific embodiment disclosed in the patents, where the power source is shown attached directly to the inner surface of the second layer.
  • An evidentiary question will be the effect of the pre-suit notice letters. The court will examine whether the notices were sufficiently detailed to establish actual knowledge for the purpose of willfulness and whether Defendant's subsequent conduct was objectively reckless.