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.
September’s photonics-related IP activities include 38 cases concerning various technologies, including cameras, imaging systems, and image processing; displays; lighting and light sources; optical communications; augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR); biosensors; optical materials; solar energy; biological applications; x-ray imaging; and computer vision.
Cameras, imaging systems, and image processing
On September 3rd, the Artificial Intelligence Industry Association Inc. (AIIA) sued Elementary Robotics Inc., Geisel Software Inc., Parallel Domain Inc., and Ceres AI Inc. in separate lawsuits for the infringement of three patents relating to a stereoscopic 3D camera for VR, the generation of synthetic image data for machine learning, and embedding calibration metadata into stereoscopic video files. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,930,315; 10,075,693; and 11,257,272. The AIIA also sued Topaz Labs LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,508,580; 8,965,121; and 9,185,388. These patents describe image color matching and the creation of 3D images of a scene. The AIIA sued Skylum Software USA Inc. for infringement of the ‘121 and ‘388 patents, along with U.S. Patent No. 8,441,520, which describes primary and auxiliary image capture devices for image processing. In a related case, Plus One Robotics Inc. filed for a declaratory judgement in the Western District of Texas, asking the court to declare that it does not infringe five patents owned by the AIIA, the ‘315, ‘693, and, ‘272 patents, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 9,948,919 and 10,979,693, which both describe a stereoscopic camera for a VR experience.
VDPP LLC continued to assert its image-processing patent portfolio, suing Touch Dynamic Inc. and Innovative Video Technology Inc. in separate lawsuits for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,426,452 and 9,716,874. The patents describe image processing and video frame manipulation to convert 2D images into 3D motion pictures. In other lawsuits, VDPP sued Rivian Automotive Inc. for infringement of the ‘874 patent and U.S. Patent No. 9,699,444, and sued The TJX Companies Inc. and Subway IP LLC in separate lawsuits for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,030,902 and 9,948,922. VDPP also sued Janam Technologies for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,426,452 and 10,021,380. The ‘452 patent has now been asserted against 25 different parties, the ‘874 patent against 32 parties, the ‘444 patent against 38 parties, the ‘902 patent against six parties, the ‘922 patent against 35 parties, the ‘452 patent against 25 parties, and the ‘380 patent against 59 parties.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the appeals court with jurisdiction over patent cases, affirmed Motorola Mobility LLC’s win in an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,784,948, owned by Largan Precision Co. Ltd. The patent describes an imaging lens system particularly for use in a mobile phone camera. However, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s finding that Motorola had failed to show in another IPR that Largan’s U.S. Patent No. 9,696,519 is invalid.
Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed petitions for Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,659,682; 10,944,901; 11,671,702; 11,252,325; and 12,250,452, owned by SnapAid Ltd. The patents describe estimating the quality of an image relative to a number of images. Samsung filed the petitions after being sued for infringement of the patents earlier this year. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will decide whether to institute the IPRs by early March 2026.
On September 9th, Trax Retail Inc. sued Pensa Systems Inc. in the Western District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,387,996 and 12,154,459. The patents describe a system for panoramic image processing and the presentation of items on an electronic visual display in retail stores.
On September 16th, Monument Peak Ventures LLC sued Arashi Vision Inc. d/b/a Insta360 in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of seven patents relating to digital imaging and automated videography technologies originally developed by Kodak. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,237,771; 8,274,544; 8,842,155; 8,856,418; 9,848,158; 10,425,612; and 10,425,612.
Displays
On September 3rd, the CAFC gave Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. a partial win in an appeal of the PTAB’s IPR decisions on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,624,850 and 9,569,093, owned by Power2B Inc. The patents disclose interactive displays that can determine the relative position of objects in front of them and execute corresponding functions. In the IPRs, the PTAB found certain claims to be valid, which Samsung appealed, and certain claims to be invalid, which Power2B appealed. The Court affirmed the finding that the claims were invalid and overturned the finding that claims were valid, finding that some of the claims the PTAB found valid were invalid, and remanding the remaining claims to the PTAB for further proceedings.
On September 5th, BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,391,020, owned by 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. The patent describes terminal placement for electrical connections to a liquid crystal display (LCD). BOE Technology Group filed the petition after being sued for infringement of the patent earlier this year. The PTAB should decide by early March 2026 whether to institute the IPR.
Hisense USA Corp. filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,936,415; 8,267,537; and 8,408,778, owned by Light Guide Innovations LLC. The patents describe LED module substrates, connecting substates, and backlit LCDs. Hisense filed the petitions after being sued for infringement on the patents. The PTAB should determine whether to institute the IPRs by mid-March 2026.
BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,279,708; 10,013,088; 10,439,015; 10,832,616; and 11,626,066, owned by Samsung Display Co. Ltd. The ‘708 and ‘015 patents describe a sub-conductive layer in active displays and a particular structure for a thin-film transistor and associated circuitry in an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display. The ‘088 patent describes a touch-sensitive display panel. The ‘616 and ‘066 patents describe a pixel arrangement structure for an OLED display. BOE Technology filed the petitions in response to being sued for infringement of the patents earlier this year. The PTAB should decide around mid-March 2026 whether to institute the IPRs.
On September 18th, BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. filed IPR petitions for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,704,762 and 9,507,477, owned by Paneltouch Technologies LLC. The patents describe a touch-sensitive display device that facilitates the inspection of signal interconnects. BOE Technology filed the petitions after being sued by Paneltouch for infringement of the patents earlier this year. The PTAB should decide by mid-March 2026 whether to institute the IPRs.
The PTAB issued a final written decision in an IPR for U.S. Patent No. 9,330,593, with mixed results for the patent owner Samsung Display Company Ltd., and the petitioners, Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd., Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co. Ltd, Tianamicroelectronics Co. Ltd., and Visionix Technology Inc. The patent describes a stage circuit and its use in driving an OLED display. Samsung had sued BOE and others for infringement of the patent, and initiated an ITC action based on the patent, following which BOE and others filed IPR petition. The PTAB determined that six of the 17 challenged claims are invalid, leaving Samsung to assert the remaining 11 claims against the defendant in a lawsuit currently ongoing in the Northern District of Texas.
Lighting and light sources
On September 3rd, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPRs on U.S. Patent No. 6,465,961 and 6,634,770, owned by Cao Lighting Inc. The patents describe a light source using semiconductor devices mounted on a heat sink. The IPRs had been sought by Wolfspeed Inc. and Ideal Industries Lighting LLC d/b/a Cree Lighting after being sued for infringement by Cao. In final written decisions, the PTAB found that all but one of the challenged claims in each patent were invalid. Cao appealed the decisions, but the Court affirmed the findings.
On September 4th, the PTAB declined to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,433,116, owned by Omni Continuum LLC. The patent describes an infrared (IR) light source that includes a Raman shifter. The IPR petition had been filed by NKT Photonics Inc. and NKT Photonics A/S after being sued for patent infringement by Omni Continuum.
On September 15th, LED Wafer Solutions LLC sued Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, Samsung Electronics America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,952,405 and 9,786,822. The patents describe an LED package and method of manufacturing it.
Bright Hand LLC sued Shenzhen Aoya Kuajing Dianzi Shangwu Youxiangongsi in the Northern District of Illinois for infringing its U.S. Patent No. 8,523,377. The patent describes an illuminating LED assembly configured to be worn on the user’s hand.
Optical communications
On September 8th, the PTAB entered adverse judgements in four IPRs against patents owned by Belden Canada ULC. The IPRs had been brought by CommScope Technologies LLC after being sued on patents U.S. Nos. 10,795,107; 11,435,542; 11,656,422; and 11,740,423. The patents describe modular fiber-optic cassettes and a tray system for such cassettes in fiber-optic management systems.
Accelight Technologies Inc. filed petition for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,042,116; 10,379,301; and 10,788,690, owned by Applied Optoelectronics Inc. The patents describe an arrayed waveguide grating chip and transceiver modules, and an optical isolator array for use in an optical transmitter subassembly. Accelight filed the petition in response to being sued for patent infringement by Applied Optoelectronics in 2024. The PTAB should decide by the end of March 2026 whether to institute the IPR.
AR/VR
In an unusual move, the Patent Office intervened in an IPR appeal at the CAFC, asking that the case be remanded to the PTAB so that it may issue a revised decision. The PTAB previously found in the IPR that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,696,113, owned by Percept Technologies Inc., were invalid. The IPR had been brought by Magic Leap Inc. after being used by Percept for infringement of the ‘113 patent. The patent describes a wearable optics device with dynamic eye tracking that can be used in AR. The CAFC granted the Patent Office’s request and remanded the case to the PTAB for further consideration.
The PTAB instituted three IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,585,476; 10,828,559; and 11,376,493, owned by Mullen Industries LLC. The patents disclose AR systems and their use in location-based games. The IPRs had been sought by Meta Platforms Inc. f/k/a Facebook Inc. after being sued by Mullen for patent infringement. The PTAB should issue final written decisions in the IPRs by the end of March 2026.
Biosensors
In their ongoing dispute over the use of biosensors in wearable devices, Apple Inc. and Masimo Corp. received mixed results in IPRs on Masimo’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,687,743 and 10,722,159. The patents describe optically based oxygen saturation monitors. Masimo sued Apple for infringement of the patents in December 2022, in response to which Apple petitioned for the IPRs. In its final written decisions, the PTAB agreed with Apple that 20 of the challenged claims of the ‘743 patent were invalid, but found that five of the challenged claims remained valid. In the ‘159 patent, the PTAB found 23 of the 25 challenged claims invalid, with the remaining two claims being valid.
WHOOP Inc. filed IPR petitions on three patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,651,533; 10,874,304; and 11,160,455, owned by Omni MedSci Inc. The patents cover wearable devices that include optical measurement of physiological parameters. Whoop filed the petitions in response to being sued for patent infringement by Omni MedSci. The PTAB should decide by the end of March 2026 whether to institute the IPRs.
Optical materials
On September 17th, Kuraray America Inc. filed for a declaratory judgement in the Eastern District of Virginia, requesting the court to find that six patents owned by Sekisui Chemical Ltd. are invalid. The patents describe interlayer films for laminated glass, including wedge-shaped, sound-insulating polymer films used in automotive windshields, and are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,886,871; 8,033,360; 8,695,756; 9,067,386; 9,427,932; and 10,913,244.
Solar energy
On September 3rd, the Patent Office denied the petition by JinkoSolar Co. Ltd. to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,515,214, owned by LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. The patent describes a solar battery module. JinkoSolar had filed the petition in response to being sued for infringement of the patent.
Biological applications
Cytek Biosciences Inc. filed petitions for Post Grant Review (PGR) of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,174,106 and 12,174,107, owned by Beckman Coulter Inc. These petitions join an IPR petition filed by Cytek on Beckman’s U.S. Patent No. 11,703,443, filed earlier this year. The patents describe the use of a wavelength division multiplexer arrangement for signal detection in a flow cytometer. Cytek filed the petitions in response to being sued for infringement of the patent by Beckman. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the PGRs before the end of March 2026.
X-ray imaging
On September 9th, a jury in the Northern District of California awarded Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy Inc. $785,000 in damages against Sigray Inc. after finding that Sigray infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,057,187 and 7,400,704. The patents describe a scintillator optical system and a high-resolution, direct projection-type x-ray microtomography system.
Computer vision
The PTAB refused to institute an 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 IPR petition was filed by Koito Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
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.
About the Author
Iain McIntyre
Iain A. McIntyre, J.D., Ph.D., is a partner at the Minneapolis law firm Carlson Caspers. He earned his doctorate in laser physics from The University of St. Andrews in Scotland. After working in lasers and electro-optics for 10 years, he switched careers and has worked in patent law for more than 25 years. He is experienced in patent prosecution, litigation, counseling, FTO, and due diligence analyses.