Launchip LLC v. Target Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Launchip LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Target Corporation (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01167, W.D. Tex., 11/27/2019
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant’s lighting products infringe three patents related to systems for creating variable color and lighting effects.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using programmable microcontrollers to manage the color output of multi-element light sources, such as LEDs, to create dynamic decorative displays.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are related. U.S. Patent No. 8,390,206 is a continuation of the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No. 8,203,275. Both claim priority to an application filed in 2005, which is subsequent to the 1999 filing of the application for U.S. Patent No. 6,285,140. The complaint does not mention any other relevant procedural history.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-04-21	Priority Date, ’140 Patent
2001-09-04	Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 6,285,140
2005-08-16	Priority Date, ’275 Patent and ’206 Patent
2012-06-19	Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 8,203,275
2013-03-05	Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 8,390,206
2019-11-27	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,285,140 - "Variable-effect lighting system," Issued Sep. 4, 2001

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art variable lighting systems as being either bulky and mechanical (e.g., using motors and autotransformers) or electronically complex and limited in the range of achievable color displays (’140 Patent, col. 1:10-2:11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a simpler electronic system where a programmable microcontroller controls a string of bicolored lamps (such as back-to-back LEDs of different colors) (’140 Patent, col. 3:56-65). By setting the "conduction angle" of an electronic switch connected to an AC power source, the controller determines which portion of the AC waveform powers the lamps, thereby controlling which color is illuminated and for how long, allowing for the creation of complex, pre-programmed color patterns (’140 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-31).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a more versatile and less complex method for creating a wide variety of dynamic color effects in decorative lighting, such as Christmas light strings, compared to earlier technologies (’140 Patent, col. 2:8-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶15). Independent claim 18 is representative of the AC-powered system described.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 18 include:
  • A lamp assembly with multiple multi-colored lamps connected in series with an AC voltage source.
  • Each lamp having a first illuminating element for a first color (active during a first voltage phase) and a second illuminating element for a second color (active during a second, opposite voltage phase).
  • A programmable lamp controller that sets the "conduction angle" of the elements according to a pre-determined pattern stored in the controller's memory.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringing "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶15).

U.S. Patent No. 8,203,275 - "Variable-effect lighting system," Issued Jun. 19, 2012

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general field as the '140 Patent: the need for versatile, electronically controlled lighting systems (’275 Patent, col. 1:12-2:10).
• The Patented Solution: This invention adds a layer of user interactivity. It describes a lamp controller that can not only vary color according to a pattern but can also "terminate the variation" when a user activates an input (’275 Patent, Abstract). Crucially, the controller can retain a "datum" associated with the specific conduction interval (i.e., the frozen color/intensity) in non-volatile memory, allowing the system to display that same custom effect upon subsequent power-up (’275 Patent, col. 15:13-28; Claim 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows a user to select and save a specific, customized aesthetic from a dynamic lighting sequence, transforming a passive display into an interactive one with persistent memory.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶25). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A lamp assembly and programmable controller similar to that in the ’140 Patent.
  • A controller configured to "terminate the variation" of the light effect upon activation of a "user-operable input."
  • A non-volatile memory within the controller.
  • The controller is configured to "retain in the non-volatile memory a datum" associated with the conduction interval when the variation is terminated.
  • The controller is further configured to set the lighting effect "in accordance with the retained datum upon re-application of power."
• The complaint refers to infringing "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 8,390,206 - "Variable-effect lighting system," Issued Mar. 5, 2013

• Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a lighting system that adjusts its operation based on the detected frequency of the AC power source (’206 Patent, Abstract). This solves the technical problem where lighting effects can become unpredictable or desynchronized if the power grid's frequency deviates from the standard (e.g., 60 Hz) that the controller's timing patterns assume (’206 Patent, col. 11:54-12:12).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "exemplary claims" without specifying numbers (Compl. ¶35). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Target Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’206 Patent, but provides no specific details on how they allegedly adjust to AC frequency (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific products by name, referring only to "Exemplary Target Products" that are identified in claim charts provided as Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 (Compl. ¶15, 21, 31, 41). These exhibits were not filed with the public complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products are variable-effect lighting systems that "practice the technology claimed by the Patents-in-Suit" (Compl. ¶21, 31, 41). The functionality is broadly described as making, using, selling, and importing products that create variable lighting effects and allegedly meet all the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶15, 25, 35). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' specific functionality or market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, which are not publicly available. The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Target Products" infringe the ’140 Patent because they constitute variable-effect lighting systems that operate in a manner satisfying all elements of the asserted claims, including the use of a controller to vary color output (Compl. ¶15, 21).

For the ’275 Patent, the complaint alleges the accused products additionally include the claimed user-interactive features, such as the ability to terminate a color-changing pattern and retain the selected state in memory for recall after a power cycle (Compl. ¶25, 31).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’140 and ’275 Patents will be whether the term "conduction angle," which is described in the patent in the context of AC phase control, can be construed to read on the control mechanisms (e.g., Pulse-Width Modulation) likely used in modern LED-based products. For the ’275 Patent, a further question is whether the accused products' user interface performs the specific claim function of "terminating" a continuous variation and "retaining a datum," or if it merely switches between discrete, pre-programmed settings.
• Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may arise over how the accused products technically operate. Do they control light output by modulating portions of an AC sine wave as taught in the patents, or do they use a fundamentally different approach, such as converting AC to DC and then using digital signals to control illumination? Evidence of how the accused products store and recall user-selected states will be critical to the ’275 Patent allegations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'140 Patent and '275 Patent

• The Term: "conduction angle"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core technical limitation describing how the patented invention controls light output. Its construction will likely be dispositive, as it determines whether the claims cover modern digital lighting control techniques that may not have been prevalent when the original application was filed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not provide an explicit definition of the term. A party arguing for a broader scope may contend that "conduction angle" should be understood functionally to mean any method of controlling the duty cycle or proportion of time that an illuminating element is active.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently link the term to controlling a bidirectional switch (triac) to pass a certain portion of each half-cycle of an AC sine wave (’140 Patent, col. 4:18-31, Fig. 1a). A party arguing for a narrower scope may assert that the term is inextricably tied to this specific AC phase-control embodiment and does not read on different techniques like DC-based Pulse-Width Modulation (PWM).

'275 Patent

• The Term: "terminate the variation"
• Context and Importance: The meaning of this phrase is central to the novel interactive feature claimed in the ’275 Patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products' user functionality aligns with this specific action.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue this phrase covers any user action that stops a lighting sequence, including switching from a dynamic mode to a static color mode.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the term requires halting an in-progress, continuous color fade at the precise intermediate point of the user's choosing, as opposed to simply selecting one of several discrete, pre-set static colors. The specification describes stopping patterns like a "continuous slow colour change" and fixing the "current conduction angles" (’275 Patent, col. 15:13-28, Table B description).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating on information and belief that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents (Compl. ¶18, 28, 38). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming the products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶20, 30, 40).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegations are based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with actual knowledge, and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶17-18, 27-28, 37-38).

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim scope and technological evolution: Can the term "conduction angle," which is rooted in the patent's disclosure of analog AC phase control, be construed broadly enough to encompass the modern, digital Pulse-Width Modulation (PWM) techniques likely used to control LEDs in the accused products?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: For the ’275 patent, does the accused products' user interface perform the specific claimed function of "terminating" an in-progress continuous color variation and "retaining" a "datum" corresponding to that precise state for power-cycle recall, or does it perform a more general function of switching between pre-defined static and dynamic modes?
3. A threshold procedural question arises from the sufficiency of the pleadings: Given the complaint's lack of specific product identification and its reliance on incorporating non-public exhibits, a court may need to address whether the infringement allegations meet the plausibility standards required under Twombly and Iqbal.