Photonics IP Update: May 2025

May’s photonics-related IP activities include 38 cases concerning various technologies, including: lighting and light sources; cameras, imaging systems and image processing; displays; sensors; solar energy; automotive applications; virtual reality/augmented reality; and computer vision.

Displays

On May 6, Coretronic Corp. and Optoma Corp. filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,159,988 and 9,900,569, owned by Maxell Ltd., f/k/a Hitachi Maxell Ltd. The patents describe a lens system for a projection display and image correction capabilities based on the measured voltage across the lamp. Coretronic and Optoma filed the petition in response to being sued by Maxell for patent infringement. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPRs in November.

On May 7, Spin Screen Inc. sued Kino-Mo Ltd. and Yoongli LLC in the Western District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,284,214 and 8,411,108. The patents describe a system for displaying a static image on a rotating object, such as the wheel of a car. Spin Screen also sued Holofan Co. LLC in the Central District of California for infringement of the same two patents.

On May 16, Onscreen Dynamics LLC separately sued Group 1 Automotive Inc., Lithia Motors Inc., and Penske Automotive Group Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,395,917 and 9,645,663. The patents describe an electronic display with a virtual bezel. The ‘917 patent has been asserted against 45 different parties and the ‘663 patent against 44.

Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,642,491 and 9,512,025, owned by Corning Inc. The patents describe methods of making glass sheets for use in a liquid crystal display (LCD). Caihong filed the petitions in response to being sued for patent infringement by Corning. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPRs by mid-November.

On May 27, BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. and Chengdou BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd. sued Samsung Display Co. Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of four patents that relate to display panels used in mobile devices. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 11,037,994; 11,695,017; 12,266,309; and 12,307,976.

On May 28, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. sued BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd., Chengdou 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. in the Eastern District of Virginia for infringement of five patents relating to OLED displays, including OLED pixel arrangements and OLED driving circuits. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,414,599; 9,330,593; 9,818,803; 10,854,683; and 11,594,578.

On May 30, Buffalo Games LLC sued SimplyTech Electronics Inc. in the Southern District of New York for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,927,672. The patent discloses an LCD that is pressure-sensitive and provides multicolored images.

Maxell Ltd. f/k/a Hitachi Maxell Ltd. sued Manufacturas Avanzadas SA de CV, Shenzhebn TCL New Technology Co. Ltd., TCL Electronics holdings Ltd. f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology holdings Ltd., and several other TCL entities in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of six patents relating to displays. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,730,507; 8,107,007; 8,970,793; 9,746,710; 10,459,270; and 11,924,502.

Lighting and light sources

On May 2, Signify Holdings BV f/k/a Philips Lighting Holding BV and Signify North America Corporation sued EEMA Industries Inc. d/b/a Liton Lighting in the Central District of California for the infringement of seven patents relating to LED lighting systems and methods of controlling them. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,358,706; 8,070,328; 8,348,477; 8,348,479; 8,905,602; 10,506,682; and 11,408,588. On the same day Signify sued ETi Solid State Lighting Inc. in the Northern District of Georgia for the infringement of nine patents, also relating to LED lighting systems and methods of control. The patents in the second case are 7,511,437; 7,654,703; 8,789,978; 9,677,727; 9,709,253; 10,473,280; 10,506,682; 10,634,321; and 11,408,588.

On May 2, Pathway IP LLC sued unknown defendants in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,500,293. The patent describes a personal video lighting system that can be used with a personal computer.

On May 13, Litepanels Ltd. sued Colt International Clothing Inc. d/b/a Colt LED in the Central District of California for infringement of three patents that relate to a portable, LED-based lighting system suitable for producing different lighting conditions for television or movie filming. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,318,652; 7,510,290; and 7,972,022.

The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent Office issued a mixed final written decision in an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,884,546, owned by Semisilicon Technology Corp. The patent describes a driving apparatus for an LED curtain lamp. The IPR was sought by Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co. Ltd., challenging claims 1-6 and 8 of the patent. The PTAB found that claims 1-3 and 8 are unpatentable, but that there was insufficient evidence to show claims 4-6 to be unpatentable.

On May 16, Bulbright Industries Inc. filed a declaratory judgement action in the District of New Jersey against EdisonLED LLC, requesting the NJ court to declare that its products do not infringe any of the 11 patents EdisonLED has accused it of in a case filed in the Northern District of Texas in March. Bulbright also filed a motion in the Texas case for dismissal or transfer to NJ. The patents, which relate to LED light bulbs, are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,560,738; 8,240,881; 8,492,780; 9,065,022; 9,368,483; 9,664,340; 10,224,455; 10,282,123; 10,319,703; 11,519,564; and 11,808,436.

On May 20, Infinity X1 LLC sued Coast Cutlery Co. d/b/a Coast Products in the Central District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,852,311 and 12,203,618. The patents describe a wearable LED-based headlamp that has a broad field of illumination.

On May 20, Astera Manufacturing Ltd. and Chauvet and Sons LLC filed a petition for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,651,245, owned by ElectraLED Inc. The patent describes an LED light fixture with an internal power supply. Astera and Chauvet filed the petition in response to being sued for patent infringement by ElectraLED last year. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by the end of November. Continuing the dispute, on May 23 ElectraLED Inc. sued Astera Distribution Limited, Astera LED Technology GmbH, Astera Manufacturing Ltd., and Chauvet and Sons LLC in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,618,187. The patent describes an LED light fixture.

Cameras, imaging systems, and image processing

VDPP LLC continued to assert its image-processing patent portfolio, suing Clarius Mobile Health Corp. and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. in separate lawsuits for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,699,444 and 9,716,874. The patents describe a system in which 2D motion pictures can be viewed in part as 3D motion pictures. The ‘444 patent has now been asserted against 34 different parties and the ‘874 patent against 25 parties.

On May 12, L’Oreal USA Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,542,595, owned by Brightex Bio-Photonics LLC. The patent describes a system for recommending cosmetic products to users with a mobile device that compares an image of the user with an image that uses standard color tones. L’Oreal filed the petition in response to being sued for patent infringement by Brightex in November last year. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPR by the middle of November.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the court with jurisdiction for appeals of patent cases, ruled against Yoldas Askin in his dispute with Faro Technologies Inc. over patents that cover technology for smoothing three-dimensional images. Mr. Askin had originally filed a complaint against Faro alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,300,841 and 10,032,255. The district court had dismissed the complaint because it did not plead sufficient facts to support the claim of infringement, and then dismissed the complaint a second time after Mr. Askin had been given the opportunity to supplement the original claim. Mr. Askin appealed the dismissal to the CAFC, who upheld the dismissal. The CAFC also took the unusual step of awarding costs to Faro.

The PTAB issued adverse judgements in IPRs, finding the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,945,109 and 8,355,574, owned by 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd., to be invalid. The patents describe a method of improving the quality of a digital image by first identifying the main object of the image and then improving the quality of the main object in the image. The IPRs had originally been sought by Google LLC after being sued for patent infringement by 138 East LCD. In both patents, 138 East LCD indicated it had disclaimed the patent claims and requested the adverse judgement.

C47 Technologies LLC sued Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,984,605. The patent describes a camera system that produces a single image from merged data obtained from two cameras.

The CAFC overturned a PTAB ruling that found U.S. Patent No. 10,222,037, owned by Willis Electric Co. Ltd., to be valid. The patent describes reinforced wiring for, e.g., LED lighting nets. The IPR had been sought by Everstar Merchandise Co. Ltd. The PTAB had found that there was insufficient evidence to declare the claims to be invalid. Everstar appealed to the CAFC, who found that invalidity had indeed been established, and remanded the case to the PTAB.

On May 30, Volkswagen Group of America Inc. filed a petition for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,265,353, owned by Longhorn Automotive Group LLC. The patent describes a method of constructing an image using information received from two different imaging modes, for example a radiation emission technique and a radiation attenuation technique. Volkswagen filed the petition in response to being sued for infringement by Longhorn in November last year. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by the end of November.

Sensors

The PTAB refused to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,721,714, owned by SiOnyx LLC. The patent describes the use of light trapping pixels in an array sensor. The IPR had been sought by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. after being sued for infringement of the patent. 

On May 20, Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.; and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. filed IPR petitions for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,468,543 and 10,446,700, owned by W&Wsens Devices Inc. The patents describe microstructure enhanced photodiodes and avalanche photodiodes that are monolithically integrated with CMOS/BiCMOS circuitry. Samsung filed the petitions after being sued for infringement by W&Wsens in October last year. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPRs by the end of November.

On May 20, OmniVision Technologies Inc. filed a petition for an IPR for U.S. Patent No. 6,838,651, owned by RE Secured Networks LLC. The patent describes a high-sensitivity snapshot CMOS image sensor. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPR by the end of November.

Solar energy

On May 6, the PTAB instituted IPRs against U.S. Patent Nos. 9,722,104 and 10,230,009, both owned by Trina Solar Co. Ltd. The IPRs had been sought by Mundra Solar PV Ltd. and Adani Solar USA Inc. The patents describe a semiconducting solar cell that includes a tunnel layer and a passivation layer. The PTAB is expected to issue a final written decision in this matter by early May 2026.

On May 9, First Solar Inc. sued Canadian Solar Inc., Canadian Solar International Ltd., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Thailand) Co. Ltd., Canadian Solar (USA) Inc., Canadian Solar US Module Manufacturing Corp., and CSI Solar Co. Ltd. in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,130,074. The patent discusses high-efficiency solar cells and methods of manufacturing them.

Automotive applications

On May 15, Hayden AI Technologies Inc. sued Fleetmind Seon Solutions Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,787. The patent relates to a license plate recognition camera and its use for detecting a traffic violation.

On May 15, Peregrine Data LLC sued SmartDrive Systems Inc. in the Northern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,319,619. The patent describes a method of recording events occurring during an automobile trip using cameras disposed around the vehicle.

Virtual reality/augmented reality (VR/AR)

On May 28, the PTAB instituted an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,982,110, owned by Eyesmatch Ltd. The patent describes an AR system having a camera that can generate modified images appearing to be captured from a different point of view than the camera’s actual point of view. The IPR was sought by Microsoft Corp. The PTAB also joined Microsoft’s IPR with a currently pending IPR where Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc., and Google LLC are the petitioners. The PTAB is expected to issue a final written decision in both the IPRs by the end of November.

Computer vision

Patent Armory Inc. sued XRPro LLC and, in a separate lawsuit, Fussen Technology International Co. Ltd. and Zirkonzahn GmbH for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,256,899. In a third lawsuit, Patent Armory sued Hangzhou Shining 3D Co. Ltd. for infringement of the ‘899 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,336,375. The patents describe a method of acquiring an approximation of the surface geometry of a 3-dimensional object that includes wirelessly transmitting images of the object illuminated with a structured light pattern to a receiver that analyzes multiple images. Patent Armory has asserted the ‘899 patent against 18 different parties and the ‘375 patent against 6 parties.