Photonics IP Update: July 2025

This roundup summarizes photonics-related patent litigation and Patent Office procedures for July 2025.
Aug. 4, 2025
13 min read

July’s photonics-related IP activities include 32 cases concerning various technologies, including displays; lighting and light sources; cameras, imaging systems, and image processing; sensors; optical communications; medical and dental applications; biological applications; optical character recognition; solar energy; manufacturing; and color printing.

Displays

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent Office denied institution of four Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) sought by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. on patents owned by Sinotechnix LLC. The patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,618,162; 7,748,873; 7,901,113; and 8,132,952, relate to backlit display technology. Samsung had sought the IPRs after being sued by Sinotechnix for infringement. The PTAB’s reasons for the denial were that the district court trial was scheduled to take place four months before the PTAB could issue a final written decision and that, because the patents had been in force for more than 10 years, the patent owner had a settled expectation that the patents were valid.

On July 10th, BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. (BOE) filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,803,836 and 9,250,758, owned by PanelTouch Technologies LLC. The patents describe a touch panel and a display device comprising, in order, a touch panel, an organic emitting display, and a circular polarizing plate. BOE filed the petition in response to PanelTouch suing BOE for infringement of the patents in February this year. The PTAB will decide whether to institute the IPRs by mid-January 2026.

The PTAB denied the petition submitted by Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,851,394, owned by Corning Inc. The patent describes a boro-aluminosilicate glass used in flat-panel display devices. The glass composition improves the melting properties of batch materials, which permits the glass to be refined using more environmentally friendly fining agents than previously. The Director of the PTAB denied the petition because the parallel ITC procedure was due to complete more than a month before an IPR would have and because the patent had been in force for more than 14 years, which gave Corning a strong settled expectation that the patent was valid.

The PTAB also denied petitions submitted by Coretronic Corp. and Optoma Corp. to institute IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,850,313; 8,593,580; 9,322,530; and 9,547,226, owned by Maxell Ltd. f/k/a Hitachi Maxell Ltd. The patents describe a projection image display and a light-emitting diode (LED) light source for use in the display. The Director of the PTAB denied the petition because the parallel litigation was due to be tried in court about four months before the PTAB would have issued a final written decision, and because the patents had been in force for 8, 12, and 15 years, respectively, which gave Maxell a strong settled expectation that the patents are valid.

On July 15th, BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. and Chengdu BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd. sued Samsung Display Co. Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of four patents that relate to barrier coatings on polymeric substrates in displays, a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) circuit useful in active displays, and to electronic and conducting components used within active displays. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,704,211; 9,147,772; 12,073,037; and 12,205,506.

On July 28th, BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,995,047 and 8,093,830, owned by Bishop Display Tech LLC. The patents describe LED driving circuits that can be used in an OLED display. BOE Technology filed the petitions in response to being sued by Bishop for infringement in March. The PTAB should determine whether to institute the IPRs by the end of January 2026.

The PTAB declined to institute IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,502,757 and 8,604,471, owned by Optronic Sciences LLC. The patents describe OLEDs and OLED displays having a threshold voltage compensation mechanism. The IPRs had been sought by BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. after being sued for patent infringement by Optronic Sciences. The PTAB stated the reason for denial was that the patents had been in force for about 12 years, creating strong settled expectations for Optronic Sciences, and any written decision from an IPR would likely be issued several months after the district court trial.

On July 31st, FORM Athletica Inc. sued Guangli in the District of Utah for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,698,219. The patent describes a heads-up display in swimming goggles.

Lighting and light sources

On July 1st, Semisilicon Technology Corp. sued Chanzhou Jutai Electronic Co., Linhai Caiyuan Trading Co. Ltd., Maanshan Haoluo Maoyi Youxian Gongsi, Ningbo Yihai Yangtian Lighting Co. Ltd., and Taizhou Feixin Denshi Youxian Gongsi in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,939,117 and 10,187,935. The patents relate to LED lamps with control signals carried on the power lines.

Shenzen Ronglida Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a ShutterLight filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,841,729, owned by Pathway IP LLC. The patent discloses an illuminator device for illuminating a user in front of a web camera, using a toroidal bulb. The PTAB is expected to determine whether to institute the IPR by mid-January 2026.

On July 15th, CreeLED Inc. sued NanoLumens Inc. in the Northern District of Georgia for infringement of six patents relating to LED surface mounts and to water-resistant and waterproof LED lighting and display devices. The patents are U.S. Patent No. 7,718,991; 8,049,230; 9,054,257; 9,240,395; 9,831,393; and D691100.

On July 19th, Jesco Lighting Group LLC filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,751,302, owned by AGS Lighting Management LLC. The patent describes the control of color temperature and luminance in linear LED fixtures. Jesco filed the petition in response to being sued for patent infringement in February this year. The PTAB will decide whether to institute the IPR by mid-January 2026.

On July 22nd, Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. and Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. sued BFG Supply Co. LLC in the Western District of Washington for infringement of eight patents. The patents relate to LED lighting, including LEDs with strain-enhanced well layers and surface-mounted LED packages. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,314,440; 8,872,419; 9,041,032; 10,217,912; 11,978,837; 12,194,174; 12,274,893; and 12,298,552.

On July 30th, SemiLED Innovations LLC sued Bass Pro LLC and BPS Direct LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shops in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of four patents that describe mounting and packaging LEDs, including a slim LED package. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,309,971; 8,319,246; 8,963,196; and 9,530,942.

Cameras, imaging systems, and image processing

On July 7th, a judge in the Southern District of California found that all four patents asserted by Clear Imaging Research LLC against Google LLC were invalid. U.S. Patent Nos. 9,013,587; 10,171,740; 11,165,961; and 11,457,149 describe the correction of image blur by combining multiple images. In finding the patents invalid, the judge stated that instead of describing a specific method for arriving at the end result, the claims merely combined conventional hardware with the desired result.

On July 8th, the PTAB instituted an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,232,158, owned by Intellectual Ventures II LLC. The IPR had been sought by Tesla Inc. The patent describes a digital camera having a large dynamic range based on the use of different integrating times. The PTAB is expected to issue a final written decision on this matter by early July 2026.

VDPP LLC continued to assert its image-processing patent portfolio, suing VTech Communications Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,426,452 and 9,716,874. VDPP also sued Alpinion USA. Inc. for infringing the ‘874 patent and U.S. 9,699,444. The patents describe a system in which 2D motion pictures can be viewed in part as 3D motion pictures. The ‘452 patent has now been asserted against 22 different parties, the ‘874 patent against 28 parties, and the ‘444 patent against 37 parties.

On July 21st, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC, the court with jurisdiction over patent appeals) found in favor of Motorola Mobility LLC in an IPR concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,514,499, owned by Largan Precision Co. Ltd. The patent describes an optical lens system for use with a camera in a mobile device. Largan originally sued Motorola for infringement of the patent in 2021. In 2022, Motorola filed a petition for an IPR on the patent, and the PTAB determined that the claims were obvious over a prior art reference. Largan appealed the finding, but the CAFC affirmed the PTAB in this recent decision.

On July 24th, the PTAB instituted an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,916,180, owned by Intellectual Ventures II LLC. The patent describes digital cameras having multiple simultaneous fields of view. The IPR was sought by Tesla Inc. after being sued for infringement by Intellectual Ventures II. The PTAB should issue a final written decision before the end of July 2026.

On July 29th, the PTAB denied the petition for IPR against U.S. Patent No. 7,689,001, owned by KAIFI LLC. The IPR had been sought by Amazon.com Inc. after being sued for patent infringement by KAIFI. The patent describes a method of determining the location of a camera based on taking an image of a location recognition tag. The PTAB stated the reason for denial was that the patent had been in force for about 15 years, creating strong settled expectations for KAIFI, and any written decision from an IPR would likely be issued several months after the district court trial.

Sensors

On July 14th, Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.; and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,525,084, owned by W&Wsens Devices Inc. The patent discloses a large bandwidth semiconductor detector that uses microstructure-enhanced absorption, integrated with an electronic processor to output an electronic signal that corresponds to the received optical signal. The PTAB will decide whether to institute the IPR by mid-January 2026.

On July 22nd, Motiverse Inc. sued Logitech Inc. and Corsair Gaming Inc. d/b/a CORSAIR in the Central District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,088,338. The patent describes an optical mouse that uses a multipixel image sensor.

Optical communications

On July 16th, the PTAB denied the petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,674,035, owned by Iarnach Technologies Ltd. The patent describes seamless configuration update for an optical network unit in an ethernet passive optical network. The petition was sought by Charter Communications Inc. after being sued for patent infringement by Iarnach. The petition was denied because a final written decision from an IPR would have been issued after the trial in district court.

On July 29th, the PTAB denied the petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 10,379,301, owned by Applied Optoelectronics Inc. The patent describes a multichannel parallel optical receiving device. The petition was sought by Cambridge Industries USA Inc. after being sued by Applied Optoelectronics for infringement of the patent. The PTAB stated that Cambridge Industries had failed to establish there was a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

Medical and dental applications

On July 2nd, the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,446,512, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. The patent describes an adjustable illuminator for photodynamic therapy and diagnosis. The IPR had been sought by Biofrontera Inc., Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH, and Biofrontera AG after Sun sued for patent infringement in federal court and at the International Trade Commission (ITC). The reason provided for the denial was that the scheduled final determination in the ITC proceeding would issue well before a final written decision in the IPR, and that there was no evidence the ITC would stay its proceeding.

On July 29th, Erchonia Corp. LLC sued Caroline Stites and VibraGenix LLC in the Eastern District of Washington for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,067 and 9,149,650. The patents relate to a method of scanning a laser for slimming a human body.

Biological applications

On July 17th, Cytek Biosciences Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,703,443, owned by Beckman Coulter Inc. The patent describes a flow cytometer that includes a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM) detection arrangement. Cytek filed the IPR petition in response to being sued for patent infringement in August 2024. The PTAB will decide by around mid-January 2026 whether to institute the IPR.

Optical character recognition

On July 17th, Election Systems & Software LLC filed a petition for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 12,125,319, owned by Hart InterCivic Inc. The patent describes a method of optical character recognition of voter selections for cast vote records. The PTAB will decide around mid-January 2026 whether to institute the IPR.

Solar energy

On July 18th, JinkoSolar Co. Ltd. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,130,074, owned by First Solar Inc. The patent describes a method of manufacturing a solar cell that includes a heating step to crystallize adjacent conductive and passivating layers to permit dopant diffusion from the conductive layer into the passivating layer. JinkoSolar filed the petition in response to being sued for patent infringement in February this year. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by mid-January 2026.

Manufacturing

3D Systems Corp. and 3D Systems Inc. filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 11,014,301 and 11,338,511, owned by Intrepid Automation Inc. The patents describe a multiple image projection system for additive manufacturing. Intrepid sued 3D Systems for infringement of the patents in December 2024. The PTAB will determine whether to institute the IPRs by mid-January 2026.

Color printing

On July 14th, S A International Inc. sued Xante in the District of Utah for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,743,421. The patent discusses a method of improving spot color reproduction in a printed color document.

About the Author

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.

Sign up for Laser Focus World Newsletters
Get the latest news and updates.

Voice Your Opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Laser Focus World, create an account today!