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.
November’s photonics-related IP activities include 48 cases concerning various technologies, including displays; cameras, imaging systems, and image processing; lighting and light sources; optical communications; wearable devices; dental applications; anticounterfeiting devices; targeting and tracking systems; augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR); aerial surveying; household appliances; and quantum dots.
Displays
On November 2nd, Control Sync Systems LLC sued E&S International Enterprises Inc. d/b/a ESI Enterprises Inc. in the Central District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,812,889. The patent discusses control systems for synchronously managing video and audio parameters of display and play devices.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the U.S. Patent Office denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,627,684, owned by Corning Inc. The patent discusses a pull roll apparatus and a method of using it to produce glass that is used in a display. The petition had been filed by Caihong Display Devices Co. Ltd. after being sued for infringement of the patent.
On November 3rd, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. were found to infringe two patents owned by Pictiva Displays International Ltd. and liable for $191 million in damages. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,314,547 and 11,828,425 describe organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology that the court found to be used in Samsung’s smartphones, computers, and televisions.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the appeals court with jurisdiction for patent cases, overturned a district court decision in a case between Smartrend Manufacturing Group (SMG) Inc. and Opti-Luxx Inc. The dispute was over SMG’s U.S. Patent Nos. 11,348,491 and D932,930, which describe an LED-illuminated school bus sign. The lower court had found Opti-Luxx to infringe both patents. However, the CAFC found that the lower court had misconstrued the term “transparency” for the ‘930 patent, and that no reasonable jury could have found infringement of the ‘491 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The case was sent back to the district court for a retrial on infringement of the ‘930 patent.
On November 18th, Samsung Display Co. Ltd. filed an IPR petition on U.S. Patent No. 12,158,250, owned by Pictiva Displays International Ltd. The patent describes OLEDs with features such as n-doped electron transport layers, emission layers containing iridium compounds, encapsulation structures, and specific cathode configurations. The PTAB should decide by mid-May 2026 whether to institute the IPR.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,093,830, owned by Bishop Display Tech LLC. The IPR had been sought by BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. after being sued for patent infringement by Bishop.
Cameras, imaging systems, and image processing
VDPP LLC continued to assert its image-processing patent portfolio, suing FCA US LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,426,452 and 9,716,874. In separate lawsuits, VDPP sued Dukane Corp. for infringement of the ‘874 patent and U.S. Patent No. 10,951,881, and Olympus America Inc. for infringement of the ‘452 patent and U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380. VDPP sued Canon USA Inc. and Pelco Inc. in separate lawsuits for infringement of the ‘874 and ‘380 patents. VDPP also sued JPMorgan Chase, Victoria’s Secret & Co., Starbucks Corp., Nordstrom Inc., Delta Air Lines Inc., Alaska Air Group Inc., Macy’s Corporation Services LLC d/b/a Macy’s, and 7-Eleven Inc. in separate actions for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,030,902 and 9,948,922, and Speco Technologies for infringement of the ‘380 and ‘874 patents. The patents describe image processing and video frame manipulation to convert 2D images into 3D motion pictures. The ‘452 patent has now been asserted against 30 parties, the ‘874 patent has been asserted against 37 parties, the ‘881 patent against 12 parties, the ‘380 patent against 64 parties, the ‘902 patent against 14 parties, and the ‘922 patent against 43 parties.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. achieved a successful result in IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,176,848 and 11,223,757, owned by Maxell Ltd. The patents describe a video recording device and a camera function control program. The PTAB found all challenged claims to be invalid. Samsung sought the IPRs after being sued by Maxell for infringement of the patents.
Polaris PowerLED Technologies LLC sued Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,223,117. The patent describes technology for controlling display brightness with ambient light corrections to conserve power and reduce eye strain.
On November 17th, UNITY Tactical LLC filed suit against EOTECH LLC in the District of Idaho for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,000,673; 12,287,178; and D995,701. The patents relate to mounts for optical sighting devices.
Monument Peak Ventures LLC sued Arnold Richter Cine Technik GmbH & Co. Betreibs KG in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,862,039; 7,187,858; and 7,827,508. The patents describe real-time color tone adjustment, power management based on available supply, and hotkey functions in digital camera user interfaces.
The PTAB issued a mixed decision in an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 10,015,413, owned by GoPro Inc. The patent describes the conversion between different image aspect ratios in a digital camera. The IPR was originally filed by Arashi Vision (U.S.) LLC d/b/a/ Insta360. Of the three claims left in the case at the time of the final written decision, the PTAB found that claims 6 and 7 were invalid, but that claim 1 was valid.
Lighting and light sources
On November 12th, Cree LED Inc. sued Promier Products Inc. d/b/a LitezAll.com and Tractor Supply Co. in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of six patents relating to LED arrays and packages. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,070,850; 9,754,926; 10,439,112; 11,791,442; D790486; and D892066.
In five separate lawsuits, Shenzhen Yilv Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a YL Tech; Shenzhen Hongxinshun Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a Kucjystyle-US; Shenzhen Zhiying Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a Zhiying-US; Suqian Zhenye Electronics Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a XINZHE; and Shenzhen Chunyan Technology Co. Ltd. d/b/a Chunyan US filed complaints against Hong Kong Xintai International Trade Co. Ltd. in the Western District of Washington, seeking declaratory judgement of noninfringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,819,545. The patent describes outdoor solar-powered decorative lights.
Parmida LLC filed a complaint against Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co. Ltd. and Obert Inc. in the Central District of California for declaratory judgement of noninfringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 10,670,197. The patent describes an LED tube lamp.
Optical communications
On November 3rd, Accelight Technologies Inc. filed a petition for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,523,826, owned by Applied Optoelectronics Inc. The patent describes a pluggable transceiver module configured for insertion into a socket. Accelight filed the petition in response to being used by Applied Optoelectronics for infringement of the patent in December 2024.
Eoptolink Technology USA Inc. filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,578,818 and 10,714,890, owned by Applied Optoelectronics Inc. The patents describe a pluggable optical transceiver module with a main body, a fastening component, an elastic component disposed in a confined groove on an out surface, and a transmitter optical subassembly arrangement with vertically mounted monitor photodiodes. Eoptolink filed the petitions in response to being sued for infringement of the patents by Applied Optoelectronics in November 2024.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 10,996,417, owned by CommScope Technologies LLC. The patent describes a fiber-optic enclosure with an internal cable spool and movable cover. The petition for the IPR had been submitted by Belden Inc. et al. after being sued for patent infringement by CommScope.
Wearable devices
In the latest step in the ongoing smartwatch dispute between Masimo Corp. and Apple Inc., a jury found that Apple infringed Masimo’s U.S. Patent No. 10,433,776, awarding Masimo $634 million in damages based on a reasonable royalty.
On November 17th, Ouraring Inc. filed three separate lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas against 1) Zepp Health Corp.; 2) Nexxbase Marketing PCT. Ltd.; and 3) Original Fit Factory Ltd., Reebok International Ltd. LLC, RILUK IPCO Ltd., and Truconnect Ltd. The lawsuits assert eight patents relating to smart ring wearable technology, including devices and manufacturing methods for finger-worn rings that monitor health metrics such as heart rate, temperature, blood oxygen levels, and movement. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 11,868,178; 12,222,759; 12,346,159; 12,346,160; 12,353,244; 12,393,227; 12,422,889; and 12,429,909. The following day, Ouraring filed an action with the International Trade Commission against the same parties and based on the same patents.
On November 25th, the PTAB issued a mixed final written decision in a Post Grant Review (PGR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,868,178, owned by Ouraring Inc. (asserted by Ouraring in the cases described above). The patent relates to smart ring wearable technology. The PGR had been sought by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. Of the 19 claims reviewed, the PTAB found two to be invalid and that there was insufficient evidence to find the remaining 17 claims to be invalid.
Dental applications
The PTAB instituted an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 10,791,936, owned by Align Technology Inc. The patent relates to methods and systems for creating and interacting with 3D virtual models useful in orthodontics and prosthodontics. The petition for the IPR was filed by ClearCorrect Operating LLC, after being sued for infringement of the patent.
Anticounterfeiting devices
In two final written decisions, the PTAB concluded that the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,901,191 and 10,189,294, owned by Lumenco LLC, are invalid. In a third decision, the PTAB found that 13 of the 20 claims in U.S. Patent No. 11,448,863 are invalid, with the other seven claims remaining valid. The patents describe arrays of individually oriented micromirrors for use in imaging security devices for currency and brand authentication and methods of making them. The IPRs had been sought by Giesecke+Devrient GmbH f/k/a Giesecke & Devrient GmbH et al. after being sued for patent infringement by Lumenco.
Targeting and tracking systems
On November 2nd, Vision Augmentation Technology LLC sued SICK AG, SICK Inc., and SICK Product & Competence Center Americas LLC in the Southern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,433,021. The patent describes a system for stereoscopic targeting, tracking, and navigation.
AR/VR
On November 21st, the PTAB issued a final written decision in an IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,982,110, owned by EyesMatch Ltd., finding all challenged claims to be invalid. The patent describes a method for image transformation and AR. The IPR had been initiated by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. after being sued for patent infringement.
Aerial surveying
The PTAB denied institution of IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,529,029; 10,650,285; 11,030,491; and 11,195,058, owned by Aon Re Inc. The patents describe aerial surveillance systems. The IPRs had been sought by Zesty.ai Inc. after being sued for patent infringement by Aon Re.
Household appliances
On November 5th, Volteon LLC sued Shenzhen Gotron Electronic Co. Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,630,062 and 10,958,819. The patents relate to an electric shaver that includes a digital camera for a close image of the shaving surface, and a shaver with motion sensing. In a separate lawsuit, Volteon sued UMIDIGI Technology Co. Ltd. and Vertu International Corp. Ltd. for infringement of the ‘819 patent.
Quantum dots
On November 21st, Shoei Chemical Inc. and Shoei Electronic Materials Inc. sued Nanoco Technologies Ltd. in the Eastern District of Virginia seeking declaratory judgement of non-infringement against four Nanoco patents. The patents, which describe quantum dot technology and methods for making nanoscale materials, are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,588,828; 7,803,423; 7,867,557; and 8,524,365.
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.