DCT

7:25-cv-00360

EdisonLED LLC v. Home Depot Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00360, W.D. Tex., 08/22/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s operation of numerous “The Home Depot” retail stores and distribution centers within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Ecosmart brand LED light bulbs infringe fifteen patents related to fundamental LED device structure, packaging, and methods for improving light emission efficiency and thermal performance.
  • Technical Context: The patents address core challenges in solid-state lighting, including overcoming internal light reflection, managing heat dissipation in complex arrays, and creating omnidirectional light patterns suitable for replacing traditional incandescent bulbs.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit were assigned from Epistar Corporation, which the complaint describes as a pioneer in the LED industry. The complaint notes that many of the asserted patents have been previously licensed to other lighting companies. It also highlights prior litigation by Epistar, including a successful jury verdict against Lowe's finding infringement and validity of claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,560,738, one of the patents asserted in this case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-07-04 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,560,738
2005-01-25 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,489,068
2007-01-24 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,224,455
2008-11-13 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,240,881
2009-02-10 U.S. Patent No. 7,489,068 Issued
2009-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,560,738 Issued
2011-10-26 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,793,451
2012-05-29 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,166,116; 9,741,699; 11,808,436
2012-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,240,881 Issued
2012-08-15 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,319,703
2013-03-18 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,065,022
2013-06-11 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,664,340; 11,519,564
2013-08-29 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,368,483
2013-10-22 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,281,123; 10,989,396
2015-06-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,065,022 Issued
2015-10-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,166,116 Issued
2016-06-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,368,483 Issued
2017-01-01 Epistar litigation against Lowe's initiated (approximate date)
2017-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,664,340 Issued
2017-08-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,741,699 Issued
2017-10-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,793,451 Issued
2019-03-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,224,455 Issued
2019-05-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,281,123 Issued
2019-06-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,319,703 Issued
2021-04-27 U.S. Patent No. 10,989,396 Issued
2022-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 11,519,564 Issued
2023-11-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,808,436 Issued
2024-09-06 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant
2025-01-30 Plaintiff sends follow-up notice letter to Defendant
2025-03-24 Plaintiff sends over 244 detailed claim charts to Defendant
2025-08-22 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,489,068 - "Light emitting device" (Issued Feb. 10, 2009)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of light loss in LEDs due to total internal reflection (Compl. ¶34). When light generated in a high-refractive-index material (like an LED's epitaxial layer) hits the boundary of a lower-refractive-index material (like a substrate or air) at a shallow angle, it reflects back instead of escaping, getting trapped and absorbed, which reduces the device's overall efficiency (’068 Patent, col. 1:35-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "light emitting device utilizing a diffusing surface formed in a light emitting stack...to increase the light extraction efficiency" (Compl. ¶35; ’068 Patent, col. 1:63-66). By creating a textured or rough surface at a key interface, the device scatters the trapped light, changing its angle of incidence and increasing the probability that it will escape the device instead of being internally reflected and absorbed (’068 Patent, col. 6:34-40).
  • Technical Importance: Improving light extraction efficiency was a critical challenge in making LEDs bright and energy-efficient enough for general illumination, directly impacting their commercial viability as replacements for traditional light sources (Compl. ¶35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶130).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A transparent substrate.
    • A light emitting stack having a first diffusing surface above the transparent substrate.
    • A transparent adhesive layer between the transparent substrate and the first diffusing surface.
    • An index of refraction of the light emitting stack is different from that of the transparent adhesive layer.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent but makes general allegations of infringement of one or more claims (Compl. ¶20, 129).

U.S. Patent No. 7,560,738 - "Light-emitting diode array having an adhesive layer" (Issued Jul. 14, 2009)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks in prior art LED arrays, particularly their incompatibility with certain high-efficiency diode types (quaternary Al-In-Ga-P diodes on conductive substrates) and significant heat dissipation challenges that arose as the arrays became larger and operated at higher voltages (Compl. ¶41; ’738 Patent, col. 1:31-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "light-emitting diode array" that uses an adhesive layer to bond epitaxial light-emitting stack layers to a substrate (Compl. ¶42). Critically, the P-contact and N-contact for each stack layer are "disposed on the same side," a configuration which the patent asserts improves the "heat-dissipation efficiency" of the array (’738 Patent, col. 1:48-56, 4:17-23).
  • Technical Importance: Effective thermal management is crucial for the performance, reliability, and lifespan of LEDs; this patented structure provided a way to build larger, more powerful arrays while managing the resulting heat (Compl. ¶42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶143).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A substrate.
    • An adhesive layer formed on the substrate.
    • A plurality of electrically connected epitaxial light-emitting stack layers disposed on the adhesive layer.
    • Each of the epitaxial light-emitting stack layers comprising a P-contact and an N-contact.
    • The P-contact and the N-contact are disposed on the same side of the epitaxial light-emitting stack layer.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent but makes general allegations of infringement (Compl. ¶20, 142).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,240,881

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8240881, “Light-emitting device package,” Issued Aug. 14, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses light efficiency reduction caused by light absorption in larger LED chips (Compl. ¶49). The solution is a package where the light-emitting device is mounted on a carrier’s platform at a specific angle (45-135 degrees) to optimize light extraction (Compl. ¶50).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶156).
  • Accused Features: The internal structure and packaging of the Accused Products are alleged to embody the claimed angled mounting configuration (Compl. ¶155).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,065,022

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9065022, “Light-emitting apparatus,” Issued Jun. 23, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the low efficiency, high cost, and limited lighting angles of traditional LED lamps that mount multiple LED chips on a planar, opaque substrate (Compl. ¶55-56). The invention discloses an apparatus where an LED chip with a wide light emitting angle (>180°) is mounted on a substrate such that light can penetrate through the substrate and emerge from the opposing side, which is then coupled to a support base (Compl. ¶57).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶169).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products are light-emitting apparatuses that use LED chips and substrates configured to allow for wide-angle, multi-directional light emission (Compl. ¶168).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,166,116

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9166116, “Light emitting device,” Issued Oct. 20, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses similar problems as the ’022 Patent: the inefficiency and inflexibility of depositing LED chips on planar, opaque substrates (Compl. ¶62-63). The solution is a device with a plurality of wide-angle (>180°) LED chips on a substrate, where the area of the substrate's main surface is at least five times the total area of the LED chips' light-emitting surfaces, enabling sufficient and uniform light intensity (Compl. ¶64).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 17 (Compl. ¶182).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to use a plurality of LED chips on a substrate with the claimed surface area ratio to achieve wide-angle illumination (Compl. ¶181).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,368,483

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9368483, “Illumination device capable of decreasing shadow of lighting effect,” Issued Jun. 14, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that conventional LEDs emit light from a single side, creating shadows and providing low luminous efficiency (Compl. ¶69). The solution is an illumination device with light-emitting elements disposed around a symmetrical center on a supporting base, with the elements tilted to decrease shadowing and provide bidirectional light emission (Compl. ¶70).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶195).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be illumination devices constructed with tilted, symmetrically-arranged light-emitting elements to achieve shadow reduction (Compl. ¶194).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,664,340

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9664340, “Light-emitting device,” Issued May 30, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for a light-emitting apparatus with an omnidirectional light pattern, which was unavailable with conventional designs (Compl. ¶75). The solution is a device with a carrier, electrodes on its top and bottom surfaces, a light-emitting unit, and a transparent body covering the assembly, allowing light to emit in multiple directions (Compl. ¶76).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶208).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be devices with the claimed carrier, electrode, and transparent body structure designed for omnidirectional light output (Compl. ¶207).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,741,699

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9741699, “Light emitting device,” Issued Aug. 22, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses similar challenges as the ’022 and ’116 patents regarding the limitations of planar substrates (Compl. ¶81-82). The solution is a light-emitting apparatus with a substrate, multiple LED chips, and a wavelength conversion layer that continuously covers the end and the chips without covering the side surfaces, all coupled to a support base at an angle (Compl. ¶83).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶221).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to contain the claimed arrangement of substrate, LED chips, and a continuous wavelength conversion layer to achieve efficient, wide-angle lighting (Compl. ¶220).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,793,451

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9793451, “Light-emitting diode device,” Issued Oct. 17, 2017.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses light efficiency reduction in larger LED chips due to internal light absorption (Compl. ¶89). The solution is an encapsulated device where a transparent substrate is not parallel to the circuit carrier, and a transparent glue covers the LED chip with a specific curved cross-section to enhance light efficiency (Compl. ¶90). The complaint includes FIG. 1 from the patent to illustrate a prior art configuration with parallel surfaces that the invention improves upon (Compl. ¶88).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶234).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be encapsulated devices with the claimed non-parallel substrate and curved glue structure (Compl. ¶233).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,224,455

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10224455, “Light-emitting device and method of forming the same,” Issued Mar. 5, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses brightness reduction from total internal reflection, where light beams with large incident angles get trapped and absorbed (Compl. ¶95-96). The patented solution is a device with an epitaxial structure, a transparent substrate with a top surface area at least 1.6 times the active layer's area, and specific transparent layers, to improve brightness (Compl. ¶97). The complaint includes diagrams from the patent showing light rays being trapped in prior art devices (Compl. p. 24).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶247).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to incorporate the claimed multi-layer structure with specific surface area ratios to improve brightness (Compl. ¶246).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,281,123

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10281123, “Illumination device,” Issued May 7, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the poor lighting effect and low efficiency of conventional single-side emitting LEDs (Compl. ¶102). The solution is an illumination device where a light-emitting element (comprising a substrate, chip, and wavelength conversion layer) is inserted into a supporting base, with the conversion layer only covering a portion of the substrate's supporting surface (Compl. ¶103).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 11 (Compl. ¶260).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be illumination devices with the claimed inserted light-emitting element and partial wavelength conversion layer coverage (Compl. ¶259).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,319,703

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10319703, “Light bulb,” Issued Jun. 11, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent identifies the inefficiency of incandescent lamps and the environmental pollution from compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) as problems (Compl. ¶108). The invention discloses a light-emitting device comprising light-emitting units, a transparent structure, and a conductive element connecting at least two of the units (Compl. ¶108).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶273).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be light bulbs constructed with multiple light-emitting units connected by a conductive element within a transparent structure (Compl. ¶272).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,989,396

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10989396, “Illumination Device,” Issued Apr. 27, 2021.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the same problems as the ’123 Patent: the inadequate lighting effect and low efficiency of conventional single-side emitting LEDs (Compl. ¶113). The solution is an illumination device with a light-emitting element inserted into a supporting base, where a wavelength conversion layer covers the light-emitting chip and only a portion of its supporting surface (Compl. ¶114).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 11 (Compl. ¶286).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products, particularly the "Smart A19 Filament Bulb," are alleged to embody this specific inserted-element design (Compl. ¶285).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,519,564

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11519564, “Light emitting bulb,” Issued Dec. 6, 2022.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for an omnidirectional light pattern not available in conventional apparatuses (Compl. ¶119). The solution is a device with a carrier and uniquely structured electrode strips, each with a main "stripe" and multiple "branches" extending in different directions, allowing a plurality of light-emitting units to be connected for omnidirectional output (Compl. ¶120).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶299).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products, particularly the "Smart A19 Filament Bulb," are alleged to utilize the claimed electrode structure with stripes and branches to achieve an omnidirectional light pattern (Compl. ¶298-299).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,808,436

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11808436, “Light-emitting apparatus,” Issued Nov. 7, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency and inflexibility of traditional LED lamps with planar substrates (Compl. ¶125-126). The solution is a complex apparatus comprising two separate light-emitting devices connected by a support base, with each device having LED chips and specifically shaped wavelength conversion layers to provide uniform, high-intensity light (Compl. ¶127).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶312).
  • Accused Features: The Accused Products are alleged to be light-emitting apparatuses constructed with multiple light-emitting devices and shaped wavelength conversion layers as claimed (Compl. ¶311).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies a wide range of Ecosmart-branded LED light bulbs sold by The Home Depot, including various models such as the G25, B11, A19, and ST19 series bulbs in different wattages and color temperatures (Compl. ¶2).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are solid-state lighting devices intended for general consumer and commercial use as energy-efficient replacements for traditional bulbs (Compl. ¶8). The complaint alleges that the Ecosmart brand is trademarked and owned by Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, a subsidiary of the Defendant (Compl. ¶25). The infringement allegations focus on the internal construction of these bulbs, including the physical arrangement of LED chips on substrates, the use of diffusing or textured surfaces, the configuration of electrical contacts, and the overall packaging designed to produce omnidirectional light patterns (Compl. ¶35, 42, 57, 70, 76).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits 24 and 25, which were not provided. The infringement theories are summarized below based on the complaint's description of the patented technologies and their alleged application to the accused products.

  • ’068 Patent Infringement Theory (Prose Summary): The complaint alleges that the Accused Products practice the claims of the ’068 Patent by incorporating a "light emitting device utilizing a diffusing surface" to increase light extraction and efficiency (Compl. ¶35, 129). The theory suggests that the internal structure of the Ecosmart bulbs contains a transparent substrate, a light-emitting stack, and an adhesive layer arranged in the claimed manner to solve the problem of light loss from internal reflection.
  • ’738 Patent Infringement Theory (Prose Summary): The infringement theory for the ’738 Patent alleges that the Accused Products are "light-emitting diode arrays" constructed with an adhesive layer on a substrate and featuring epitaxial light-emitting stack layers where "the P-contact and the N-contact are disposed on the same side" (Compl. ¶42, 142). This structure is alleged to meet the patent's claims for an array designed to improve heat dissipation, a critical factor in LED performance and longevity.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential point of contention for the ’068 Patent may be the definition of "diffusing surface." The analysis may question whether the surfaces within the Accused Products perform the specific light-scattering function as claimed, or if they are conventional structures present for other manufacturing or optical reasons. For the ’738 Patent, a key question may be whether the term "adhesive layer," as used in the patent, can be construed to read on the specific bonding materials and methods used in the Accused Products.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question for the ’738 Patent will be the physical placement of the P- and N-contacts within the Accused Products' LED arrays. The infringement analysis will depend on evidence demonstrating that these contacts are located on the "same side" of the stack layer as required by the claim language and defined by the patent specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "diffusing surface" (from ’068 Patent, Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’068 Patent. Its construction will be critical, as it will determine whether the textured or structured surfaces within the Accused Products, designed to manage light output, fall within the scope of the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated purpose is to "increase the light extraction efficiency and further improve its light emitting efficiency" (’068 Patent, col. 1:63-66). A party could argue that any surface structure that achieves this function by scattering light should be considered a "diffusing surface."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification may describe the "diffusing surface" as a "rough surface" created by specific processes or having particular micro-protrusions like pyramids or semi-spheres (’068 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:25-30). A party could argue the term should be limited to these specific disclosed embodiments.
  • The Term: "disposed on the same side of the epitaxial light-emitting stack layer" (from ’738 Patent, Claim 1)
    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the specific spatial arrangement of the P- and N-contacts, which is the patent's proposed solution to the heat dissipation problem. The infringement question will turn on whether the contacts in the Accused Products meet this precise structural requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states this configuration "improve[s] the heat-dissipation efficiency" (’738 Patent, col. 4:17-23). An argument could be made that the term should be interpreted functionally to cover any co-located contact arrangement that achieves this result.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed description likely illustrate a specific, coplanar arrangement of the P- and N-contacts on a single surface of the stack layer (’738 Patent, Abstract). An argument could be made that "same side" requires this exact physical layout and does not cover alternative configurations.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement across all asserted patents, stating that Defendant "promotes, advertises, and instructs customers or potential customers" on the use of the Accused Products in their intended, infringing manner (Compl. ¶133, 146, 159, etc.).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit since "at least as early as September 6, 2024" (Compl. ¶136, 149, etc.). This knowledge is alleged to arise from multiple sources: (i) specific notice letters and over 244 detailed claim charts sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶11-13); (ii) industry-wide awareness of prior litigations involving the same patents against competitors, including a successful jury verdict against Lowe's on the ’738 Patent (Compl. ¶16-17); and (iii) the industry's general recognition of originator Epistar's foundational patent portfolio (Compl. ¶5, 9, 15).

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

  • A central issue will be one of structural equivalence: does the physical construction of the accused Ecosmart bulbs—specifically, the nature of their internal optical surfaces and the placement of electrical contacts—map directly onto the specific configurations claimed in the patents, or do they represent distinct, non-infringing design choices common in the highly developed LED lighting industry?
  • A key question for damages will be one of willfulness and notice: given the extensive history of prior litigation and licensing detailed in the complaint, coupled with direct pre-suit notice, can the Defendant establish a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity for a portfolio of fifteen patents that have been actively enforced against its direct competitors?
  • A third question will be one of technological evolution: do the accused products, manufactured years after the priority dates of the foundational patents-in-suit, practice the specific claimed inventions, or do they utilize more advanced, alternative techniques to solve the same fundamental problems of light efficiency and thermal management?