Photonics IP Update offers a monthly brief of intellectual property-related legal activities in the U.S. photonics community. Designed to inform scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and business leaders, the series highlights the competitive technologies of interest not only in the marketplace but also in the courtroom—to provide insight into the strategies of major and emerging players and offer tips about the IP vital to protect.
Written by a U.S.-based IP attorney, this series covers the primary areas of IP, including trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.
April’s photonics-related IP activities include 41 cases concerning various technologies, including lighting and light sources; cameras, imaging systems and image processing; displays; medical and dental applications; optical communications; solar panels; sensors; optical materials; virtual reality/augmented reality; semiconductor manufacturing technology; and computer vision. Here are the summaries.
Lighting and light sources
On April 3rd, Shenzhen Yima Technology Co. Ltd. sued Ming D&Y Inc. in the Northern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,488,325. The patent describes an LED-powered light emitting device with a flexible light transmitting element.
On April 4th, ElectraLED Inc. sued LMPG Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,651,245 and 9,618,187. The patents relate to an LED light fixture with an internal light supply.
Litepanels Ltd. won a default judgement of $1.2M against Godox Photo Equipment Co. Ltd. in the Southern District of Ohio for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,318,652; 7,510,290; and 7,972,022. The patents relate to a portable, LED-based lighting system suitable for producing different lighting conditions for television or movie filming.
On April 9th, Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. and Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. sued Hawthorne Gardening Company in the District of Delaware for infringement of 11 patents relating to LEDs and their use in plant cultivation. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,397,069; 7,667,225; 8,981,410; 9,112,120; 9,269,868; 9,269,871; 9,716,210; 10,418,514; 11,622,509; 12,078,302; and 12,218,290.
NKT Photonics A/S and NKY Photonics Inc. filed a petition for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) on U.S. Patent No. 7,433,116, owned by Omni Continuum LLC. The patent describes an infrared light source that includes a Raman shifter. NKT Photonics filed the petition in response to being sued for patent infringement by Omni Continuum last year. The Patent Trial and appeal Board (PTAB0 is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by mid-October.
On April 15, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the appeals court with jurisdiction over patent cases, declined to reopen the appeal by Lynk Labs Inc. of the PTAB’s IPR decision finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400 invalid. The patent relates to a data communication circuit that includes an LED circuit. The IPR had been sought by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., who also won the appeal of the PTAB’s decision at the CAFC. The CAFC subsequently rejected Lynk Labs’ petition for an en banc review of the case by all the judges of the CAFC.
On April 22nd, Signify Holdings BV f/k/a Philips Lighting Holding BV sued Nanoleaf Canada Limited in the Southern District of New York for infringement of six patents based on Nanoleaf’s smart modular LED lighting panels. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,358,961; 8,111,022; 8,378,591; 9,494,730; 10,612,726; and RE49320.
Ams-OSRAM International GmbH sued Nature Fresh Farms USA Inc. in the Northern District of Ohio for infringement of seven patents relating to the fabrication of light-emitting diodes. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,435,999; 9,859,463; 9,917,229; 10,026,871; 10,164,143; 11,437,540; and 11,949,052.
On April 28th, the PTAB found for a second time that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,644,213, owned by The Regents of the University of California (“The UC”) were invalid. The patent describes an LED light bulb having a III-nitride LED that emits light through a sapphire plate. The IPR was originally sought by Satco Products Inc. after being sued for infringement by The University of California, and the PTAB found the claims invalid in November 2022. The UC appealed that finding to the CAFC, who upheld the appeal based on an improper reliance on certain aspects of a figure in the prior art and remanded the case back to the PTAB for further consideration. Using the CAFC’s instructions in their second analysis, the PTAB again found that the claims of the patent are invalid.
In separate lawsuits, BridgeComm LLC sued Ollny Inc. and Cree Lighting USA LLC for infringement of two patents that describe LED-based lighting systems that have variable lighting effects. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,203,275 and 8,390,206. Each patent has now been asserted against 28 different parties.
Cameras, imaging systems, and image processing
On April 4th, ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 9,335,255 and 9,671,328, owned by Facet Technology Corp. The patents describe a system for assessing reflective objects along a roadway to determine whether an object is a road sign. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPRs by early October.
On April 10th, SnapAid Ltd. sued Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of eight patents that relate to the real-time assessment of picture quality of images in a video stream taken with a digital camera. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,338,348; 9,661,226; 10,009,537; 10,659,682; 10,944,901, 11,252,325; 11,671,702; and 12,250,452.
In a lawsuit in the Northern District of California, the judge found in a summary judgement that certain cameras marketed by GoPro Inc. infringe patents owned by Contour IP Holding LLC. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954 and 8,896,694 were previously held by the judge to be invalid but this judgment was reversed in September last year by the CAFC, who determined that the patents were valid and covered legally protectable improvements. Litigation of the case continues on whether additional GoPro products infringe the patents and whether the patents are unenforceable.
On April 21st, AIST Solutions Co. sued Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; TCL Communication Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited; TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Industries Holdings Co. Ltd.; TCL Mobile Communication (HK) Co. Ltd.; and TCL Mobile International Limited in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of six patents relating to mobile phone technology. The patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,400,521; 9,117,139; and 9,179,090, which describe a video camera and methods of analyzing images taken by the camera.
VDPP LLC continued to assert its image-processing patent portfolio, suing Brandmotion LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,716,874 and 10,951,881. VDPP separately sued Ubiquiti Inc. f/k/a Ubiquiti Networks Inc. and Office Depot LLC for infringement of the ‘874 patent along with U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444. The patents describe a system in which 2D motion pictures can be viewed in part as 3D motion pictures. The ’874 patent has now been asserted against 23 different parties, the ’881 patent against 11 parties, and the ’444 patent against 32 parties.
The PTAB instituted IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,612,805 and 10,877,266 owned by Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC. The patents are concerned with a digital camera and software to correct for aberrations in the image produced by the lens and wirelessly transmitting the corrected images. The IPR was sought by Nikon Corporation; Panasonic Entertainment & Communications Co. Ltd; Olympus Corporation; OM Digital Solutions Corporation; Fujifilm Corporation; and Fujifilm North America Corporation after they were individually sued for patent infringement by Optimum Imaging. The PTAB is expected to issue written decisions on the validity of the patents in April 2026.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 10,529,052, owned by GoPro Inc. The patent describes a virtual lens simulation for video and photo cropping. The petition for IPR had been filed by Asahi Vision Inc. US d/b/a Insta360 after being sued for infringement by GoPro.
On April 30th, the CAFC affirmed the district court’s judgement that four patents owned by Longitude Licensing Ltd. are invalid. Longitude had sued Google LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,668,365; 8,355,574; 7,454,056; and 7,945,109, which describe identifying the main object of a digital image and adjusting the main object image data by using object information, such as color values. The district court judge found that the claimed subject matter was directed to an abstract idea rather than being based on an inventive concept, and so held the claims to be invalid. Longitude appealed that decision, but the CAFC affirmed the district court’s finding of invalidity.
Displays
The CAFC issued an opinion in a long-running dispute between ams-OSRAM USA Inc. f/k/a Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. (TAOS) and Renesas Electronics America Inc. f/k/a Intersil Corporation (Intersil) relating to ambient light sensors used in electronic products to adjust screen brightness in response to ambient light levels. The lawsuit started in 2008 when TAOS sued Intersil for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract. The CAFC had already affirmed Intersil’s liability and the recent appeal related to the amount of damages to be paid. The CAFC affirmed the lower court’s award of $8.5M for disgorgement of profits, $17M in exemplary damages, and $7.25M for the contract breach. However, the CAFC remanded the finding of $15M for prejudgment interest for further proceedings.
On April 8th, 138 East LCD Advancements Limited and Longitude Licensing Limited sued BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd; Hisense Group Holdings Co. Ltd.; and Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. f/k/a Qingdoa Hisense Electric Co. Ltd. for infringement of three patents relating to LCD displays. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,636,146; 8,319,512; and 8,391,020.
On April 17th, Samsung Display Co. Ltd. sued BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd.; Chengdu BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd.; Chongqing BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd.; Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd.; Ordos Yuansheng Optoelectronics Co. Ltd.; Wuhan BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd.; and Yunnan Invensight Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd. f/k/a BMOT f/k/a Kunmign BOE Display Technology in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of four patents. The patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,013,088; 10,439,015; 11,574,990; and 11,574,991, relate to OLED displays. Samsung filed two more lawsuits against the same entities, along with BOE Technology America Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of another patent relating to OLED displays. The patents in the second suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,299,730; 10,541,279; 11,500,496; and 11,626,066, and in the third suit are 7,279,708; 10,720,483; 10,832,616; and 11,081,503.
On April 25th, Baker Laser Technology LLC sued Samsung Electronics America Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,185,373. The patent describes a semiconductor laser-based projection system.
138 East LCD Advancements Limited and Longitude Licensing Limited sued BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of three patents that relate to LCD display panels. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,636,146; 8,319,512; and 8,391,020.
Medical and dental applications
On April 8th, Erchonia Corporation LLC sued Kelsie Donahue and Tulsa Body Sculpting Center LLC in the Northern District of Oklahoma for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,067 and 9,149,650. The patents relate to a scanning treatment laser and a method of slimming a human body using laser light.
ClearCorrect Operating LLC filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,456,217; 10,524,879; 10,791,936; 10,973,613; 11,154,384; 11,369,456; 11,648,091 and 11,648,090, owned by Align Technology Inc. The patents relate to methods of obtaining a precise three-dimensional virtual representation of a patient’s intra-oral cavity and selecting a treatment path based on that representation, and methods of making the dental appliance for the treatment. ClearCorrect filed the petitions after being sued for infringement by Align last year. The PTAB is expected to decide by mid-October whether to institute the IPRs.
On April 16th, the PTAB issued final written decisions in two IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 11,049,248 and 11,109,945, finding that the challenged claims in the patents were invalid. The patents, owned by Dental Monitoring SAS, relate to methods for monitoring the effect of a dental aligner using photos from a cell phone. The IPRs were sought by Align Technology Inc. after being sued by Dental Monitoring for patent infringement.
Optical communications
On April 7th, Network Integrity Systems Inc. sued Cybersure IPR LLC in the Eastern District of Virginia for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,641. The patent describes a method of monitoring individual fibers in a fiber cable for intrusive activity.
On April 9th, the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,287,591, owned by AFL Telecommunications LLC. The patent discloses a fiber-optic cable that is alleged to permit air-blowing while also reducing the diameter over conventional designs. The petition for IPR was filed by Sterlite Technologies Inc. after being sued for infringement by AFL.
On April 25th, Belden Inc. and PPC Broadband Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,266,697, owned by CommScope Technologies LLC. The patent discloses communications cable payout bags. The PTAB will likely announce whether it will institute the IPR by the end of October.
Solar panels
On April 15th, Mundra Solar PV Limited sued First Solar, Inc. in the District of Delaware for infringement of two patents relating to high-efficiency solar cell structures and methods of manufacture. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,130,074 and 9,666,732.
The PTAB announced the institution of an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104, owned by Trina Solar Co. Ltd. The patent describes semiconductor solar cells that include a tunnel layer and a polysilicon layer, which allegedly makes them more efficient. The IPR was sought by Runergy Alabama Inc. and Runergy USA Inc. after being sued for infringement of the patent by Trina. The PTAB should issue a final written decision by mid-April 2026.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. filed petitions for IPR on two patents owned by Trina Solar Co. Ltd. The patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,722,104 and 10,230,009, relate to solar cells that include a tunnel layer and a polysilicon layer, and methods of making them. Canadian Solar filed the IPR petitions in response to being sued by Trina for patent infringement. The PTAB is expected to determine whether to institute the IPRs by the end of October.
Sensors
The PTAB announced its decision to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,069,737, owned by SiOnyx LLC. The patent describes a detector array that includes trench texturing to enhance the absorption of incident light. The IPR was sought by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. after being sued for infringement of the patent last year. A second IPR against the same patent was terminated after SiOnyx disclaimed certain patent claims.
Apple Inc. and Sony Group Corporation together filed petitions for IPRs on two patents owned by SiOnyx LLC. U.S. Patent Nos. 9,064,764 and 10,224,359 describe a detector array with pixels that include light-trapping features to increase detection sensitivity. Apple and Sony filed the petitions in response to being sued for infringement of the patents by SiOnyx in September last year. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPRs by mid-October.
Optical materials
On April 24th, Nanoco Technologies Ltd. sued LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringing four patents relating to III-V semiconductor nanoparticles and methods of making them. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,588,828; 7,803,423; 7,867,557; and 8,524,365.
Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,640,498, owned by Corning Incorporated. The patent relates to the fining of borosilicate glasses, resulting in a glass advantageously used in liquid crystal displays. Caihong filed the petition in response to being sued for patent infringement by Corning. The PTAB should determine whether to institute the IPR by the end of October.
Virtual reality/augmented reality (VR/AR)
Meta Platforms Inc. f/k/a/ Facebook Inc. filed petitions for IPRs on three more patents owned by Mullen Industries LLC, following the eight filed in March. The patents are 9,662,582; 10,974,151; and 11,904,243. The patents describe systems for providing 3D video game indicia to a player based on the current physical location of the player. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPRs by early October. Meta filed the petitions in response to being sued by Mullen for patent infringement in April 2024.
Semiconductor manufacturing technology
On April 18th, the PTAB found the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,823,564, owned by Inpria Corporation, to be invalid but, in a rare step for the PTAB, it did allow Inpria’s motion to accept amended claims that it deemed to be patentable. The patent describes a light-sensitive coating material having a thickness in the range of 5 to 30 nm for high-resolution lithography. The IPR was sought by Lam Research Corporation after being sued by Inpria.
Computer vision
Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,810,803, owned by Longhorn Automotive Group LLC. The patent describes a computer vision system in which the illuminating light creates a random or pseudo-random pattern to better determine the position and distance of an object. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by the end of October.
This article is the author’s opinion, not that of Laser Focus World or Carlson Caspers. The information presented here should not be relied upon as legal advice.
Iain McIntyre
Iain A. McIntyre, J.D., Ph.D., is a partner at the Minneapolis law firm Carlson Caspers. He gained his doctorate in laser physics from The University of St. Andrews in Scotland. After working as a professional physicist in lasers and electro-optics for 10 years, he switched careers and has worked in patent law for over 25 years. He is experienced in patent prosecution, litigation, counseling, FTO, and due diligence analyses.