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 new series highlights the competitive technologies of interest not only in the marketplace but also in the courtroom, providing insight into the strategies of major and emerging players in various technology arenas and offering tips about the IP considered vital to protect.
Written by a U.S.-based IP attorney, the series covers the primary areas of IP, including trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.
January’s photonics-related IP activities include 43 cases concerning various technologies, including cameras, imaging systems, and image processing; displays; lighting and light sources; optical communications; solar cells; automotive applications; sensors; and eyewear. Here are the summaries.
Cameras, imaging systems, and image processing
On January 3rd, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, a branch of the U.S. Patent Office) announced it would not institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) on U.S. Patent No. 9,366,845, owned by Largan Precision Co. Ltd. The petition for IPR was submitted by Motorola Mobility LLC. The patent covers a seven-element lens system for use with the camera of a portable electronic device.
On January 6th, the PTAB instituted IPRs for five patents owned by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited. The patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,428,082; 7,454,056; 7,486,807; 7,945,109; and 8,355,574, relate to image processing, color correction, and image retrieval based on objects found within an image. The PTAB declined to institute an IPR for U.S. Patent No. 7,668,365. Longitude Licensing Limited, exclusive licensee of 138 East LCD Advancements, sued Google LLC for infringement of the patents in 2023, following which Google filed petitions for the IPRs.
On January 6th, the PTAB issued a final written decision for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,470,243, owned by The Nielsen Company (US), LLC. Nielsen asserted the patent in an infringement lawsuit filed in 2022 against TVision Insights, Inc., who subsequently filed for the IPR. The patent relates to a system for capturing images of individuals watching a television in order to monitor their reaction to the program being shown on the television. The PTAB found that all 11 challenged claims in the patent are invalid.
On January 7th, the PTAB instituted IPRs for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,015,413; 10,574,894; 10,958,840; and 11,336,832, owned by GoPro, Inc. The IPRs were sought by Arashi Vision Inc. US d/b/a Insta360, who was sued for infringement of the patent by GoPro in March 2024. The patents relate to converting the aspect ratio of an image in a camera and to leveling the horizon in a video.
VDPP, LLC continued to assert its image-processing patent portfolio in January, suing Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Medtronic, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Inc., and FUJIFILM Healthcare Americas Corporation f/k/a FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA, Inc. in separate lawsuits for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,699,444 and 9,716,874. VDPP also sued Savant Systems, Inc. for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 10,021,380. 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 29 different parties, the ‘874 patent against 16 different parties, and the ‘380 patent against 54 parties.
On January 10th, LG Electronics USA, Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,736,729, owned by Maxell, Ltd. f/k/a Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. The patent describes a camera that includes a method of overcoming image instability by using different subsets of pixels of the array detector. Maxell sued LG for infringement of the patent in August 2024. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPR by early July this year.
On January 17th, the PTAB instituted an IPR for U.S. Patent No. 10,877,266, owned by Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC. The patent covers a digital camera with wireless transfer of images that have been digitally corrected within the camera. The IPR was sought by Sony Corporation after being sued for patent infringement by Optimum Imaging in 2023. Optimum Imaging has sued 13 different parties for infringement of the ‘266 patent. The PTAB is expected to issue a final decision by mid-January 2026.
On January 23rd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. f/k/a Samsung Telecommunications America LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed petitions for IPRs on three patents owned by Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC. The patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,612,805; 8,451,339; and 10,877,266, cover a digital imaging system for correcting image aberrations and a digital camera with wireless image transfer. Samsung filed the petitions in response to being sued by Optimum Imaging for infringement of the three patents. Each patent has been asserted against 13 different parties. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPRs before the end of July this year.
On January 25th, In 2 Developments LLC sued Globe Electric Company (USA), Inc. in the Central District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,702,510 and 9,995,436. The patents are directed to an LED light bulb that includes a filament containing one or more LEDs.
On January 27th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC, the court with jurisdiction on patent appeals) gave Apple Inc. complete victory in its dispute with Gesture Technology Partners, LLC. Gesture had sued Apple in 2021 for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,553,079 and 8,878,949, which describe methods of controlling a digital camera using gestures detected by the camera. Apple responded by petitioning for IPRs, which were instituted by the PTAB. In the PTAB’s final decisions, all but one of the challenged claims of the ‘949 patent were found to be invalid. After appeal, the CAFC affirmed the invalidity of the claims of both patents and reversed the PTAB’s finding that there was a valid claim in the ‘949 patent.
On January 28th, United Services Automobile Association sued Regions Bank and Regions Financial Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of four patents that relate to digital cameras and their use for depositing checks. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 11,023,719; 11,682,222; 12,159,310; and 12,211,095.
On January 30th, Clear Imaging Research LLC sued Google LLC in the Southern District of California for the infringement of seven patents relating to the capture of video images, the reduction of the effects of camera shake, and the reduction of image blurring through the use of multiple images. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,013,587; 9,800,788; 9,860,450; 10,171,740; 11,165,961; 11,457,149; and 11,595,583.
Lighting and light sources
On January 3rd, JLC-Tech, LLC sued Luminous Global Inc. in the Southern District of California for infringement of two patents that cover a T-bar for a suspended ceiling with heat dissipation for an LED lighting system. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,508,805 and 11,732,878.
On January 14th, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400, owned by Lynk Labs, Inc., are invalid. The claims of the ‘400 patent describe LED lighting systems and various configurations of AC-driven circuits for powering the LEDs. The IPR was initiated by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Additionally, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB decision in a Post Grant Review (PGR) that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,932,341, also owned by Lynk Labs, are invalid. The ‘341 patent describes LEDs for AC operation and multiple voltage- and brightness-level LED devices, packages, and lamps. The PGR was sought by Home Depot USA Inc. after being sued for patent infringement by Lynk Labs. Lynk Labs and Home Depot also stipulated to the dismissal of Lynk Labs’ appeal of the PTAB’s PGR decision that the challenged claims of its U.S. Patent No. 11,297,705 are invalid.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. f/k/a Samsung Telecommunications America LLC filed petitions for IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,618,162 and 7,748,873, owned by Sinotechnix LLC. The patents relate to a lens that provides a uniformly illuminated spot from an LED and a lens with a totally internally reflecting surface for use with an LED to produce sideways-directed illumination. Sinotechnix sued Samsung for infringement of the patents in July 2024. The PTAB will decide whether to institute the IPR by the end of July.
On January 30th, Lime Green Lighting, LLC sued Brilliant NextGen Inc. in the Northern District of California for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 9,699,874. The patent describes a system for self-adaptive scheduled lighting control.
On January 31st, Electronic Theatre Controls, Inc., d/b/a ETC, sued Elation Lighting, Inc. in the Central District of California for infringement of three patents that cover systems and methods for controlling the spectral contents of a light output, particularly useful for theater and movie sets. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,593,074; 11,240,898; and 11,849,519.
Displays
On January 6th, the PTAB issued final written decisions in three IPRs brought by Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor Display Technology Co. Ltd., Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd., and Visionox Technology, Inc. against patents owned by Samsung Display Co., Ltd. The patents relate to the arrangement of pixels in an OLED display. In the decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803, the PTAB found that seven of the eight challenged claims are invalid, but that claim 5 is valid. In the decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683, the PTAB found that 10 of the 11 challenged claims were invalid, with claim 2 being valid. The PTAB confirmed that the claims in U.S. Patent No. 11,594,578 are valid. Samsung sued BOE Technology and Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co. for infringement of the patents in 2023.
On January 7th, the PTAB instituted an IPR for U.S. Patent No. 8,918,741, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. The patent relates to allowing the user of a touchscreen-enabled mobile device to easily unlock the device and move directly to a desired user interface or application. The IPR was sought by Amazon.com Inc. after being sued for infringement of the patent in October 2023.
On January 8th, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. f/k/a/ Samsung Telecommunications America LLC and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,132,952, owned by Sinotechnix LLC. The patent describes a backlight panel that is illuminated by white-light LEDs, each white-light LED comprising a blue light-emitting chip with red and green phosphors on the chip. Sinotechnix sued Samsung for infringement of the patent in July 2024.
On January 13th, Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd. filed a petition for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,851,394, owned by Corning, Inc. The patent relates to borosilicate glass useful for liquid-crystal displays. The IPR was sought after Corning sued Caihong Display, along with HKC Corporation Ltd., HKC Overseas Ltd., TCL China Star Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., and Xianyang Caihong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., for infringement of the ‘394 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,627,684 and 9,512,025. The latter two patents cover methods for making glass sheets. Corning has also initiated an International Trade Commission (ITC) action against the same defendants, in addition to Hisense USA Corporation, LG Electronics USA, Inc., TTE Technology, Inc d/b/a TCL North America, and Vizio, Inc. The ITC action involves the ‘394 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,640,498 and 8,642,491, which also cover borosilicate glass useful for liquid-crystal displays.
The PTAB instituted IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 10,642,413; 10,649,578; 10,656,755; 10,671,212; and 10,936,114, owned by Smith Interface Technologies, LLC. The IPRs were instituted at the request of Apple Inc., who was sued by Smith Interface for infringement of the patents in June 2023. The patents are directed to touchscreen displays that can detect gestures. The PTAB is expected to issue final written opinions on the IPRs by the end of January 2026.
The PTAB instituted three IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,723,164; 8,558,223; and 11,828,425, owned by Pictiva Displays International Limited. The patents relate to OLED technology for displays. The IPRs were sought by Samsung Display Co. Ltd. after Pictiva sued Samsung for infringement of the patents in October 2023. The PTAB is expected to issue a final decision on the IPRs before the end of January 2026.
On January 24th, SVV Technology Innovations Inc. hit ASUSTek Computer Inc. in the Western District of Texas with three patent infringement lawsuits involving 16 patents. The patents generally describe thin and flexible waveguides and approaches for trapping light for backlighting displays. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,740,397; 9,880,342; 10,439,088; 10,439,089; 10,613,306; 10,627,562; 10,838,135; 10,962,197; 11,156,340; 11,194,085; 11,402,562; 11,616,157; 11,821,621; 11,923,475; 12,159,951; and RE49630.
On January 28th, Hisense USA Corporation sued Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC in a Declaratory Judgement action in the Central District of California. The action involves four patents that cover driving and control of LEDs for backlight control of an electronic display. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,843,148; 8,217,887; 8,314,572; and 8,581,810.
The PTAB instituted IPRs for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,168,842; 7,586,121; 9,263,509; and 9,406,733, owned by Optronic Sciences LLC. The IPRs were sought by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. after it was sued for infringement by Optronic Sciences. The patents relate to backlighting an LCD display, an electroluminescent display having stacked capacitors, and to the structure of pixels in an LED display. The PTAB should issue a final written decision by the end of January 2026.
On January 29th, Coretronic Corporation and Optoma Corporation together filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,593,580, owned by Maxell, Ltd., f/k/a Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. The patent describes a projector display that uses a solid-state, white light-emitting element that incorporates a fluorescent substance. The petition was filed in response to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Maxell in July 2024. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPR by the end of July this year.
Optical communications
In an Initial Determination issued by the ITC in the action “Certain Passive Optical Network Equipment,” the ITC found that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,333,511 and 7,558,260 were not infringed by equipment imported in the U.S. by Hangzhou Sumlo Industrial Co., Ltd., Hangzhou DAYTAI Network Technologies Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Softel Optic Co., Ltd. The action was brought by Optimum Communications Services, Inc. The patents relate to a dynamically channelizable packet transport network and a dynamically switched, multi-source-node data transport bus.
On January 15th, Charter Communications, Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,674,035, owned by Iarnach Technologies Ltd. The patent describes a method for seamlessly updating the configuration of an optical network unit in an ethernet passive optical network. Iarnach sued Charter for infringement of the patent in April 2024. The PTAB should decide whether to institute an IPR by mid-July.
On January 29th, the PTAB issued a written decision that the challenged claims (1, 2, 6, 7, and 9) of U.S. Patent No. 7,198,416, owned by Inneos LLC, are invalid. The patent describes a device for combining the outputs from multiple lasers operating at different wavelengths into a single fiber. The IPR was sought by Opticis Co., Ltd. after being sued for patent infringement by Inneos in 2023.
Solar cells
On January 9th, Shoals Technologies Group, LLC sued Ningbo Voltage Smart Production Co. and Voltage, LLC for infringement of two patents directed to a lead assembly for connecting solar panel arrays to an inverter. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 12,015,375 and 12,015,376. Shoals Technologies filed an action at the ITC on the same matter on January 10th.
The PTAB instituted two IPRs on U.S. Patent No. 11,251,315, owned by Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., at the request of Canadian Solar Inc. The patent is directed to a solar cell with alleged improved lifetime, passivation, and efficiency. Maxeon sued Canadian Solar in March 2024 for infringement of the patent. Decisions in the IPRs are expected by mid-January 2026.
On January 21st, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision to find the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,060, owned by REC Solar Pte. Ltd., to be invalid. The IPR had been sought by Hanwha Solutions Corp. after being sued by REC Solar for infringement of the patent in 2020. The patent addresses the problem of partial shading in a solar cell module by dividing the solar module in half and arranging the module into units of two strings of series-connected half-cut cells.
Automotive applications
On January 9th, SemiLED Innovations LLC sued Green Creative LLC and Industrial Lighting Products, LLC in the Middle District of Florida for infringement of four patents relating to slim LED packages and an LED module for use in automobile headlights. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,128,454; 8,309,971; 8,963,196; and 9,530,942.
On January 14th, the PTAB issued final written opinions in three IPRs, finding the challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,894,503 and 11,208,029, owned by Yechezkal Evan Spero, to be invalid. The IPRs were sought by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC after being sued for infringement of the patent by Torchlight Technologies LLC, Spero’s exclusive licensee. The patents are directed to an adaptive headlight system that changes light intensity or direction upon approaching a curve in the road.
Sensors
On January 21st, the PTAB denied a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,422,236, owned by Ouster, Inc. The IPR was sought by Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. after being sued for patent infringement by Ouster. The patent covers a LiDAR system with a detector unit having multiple columns of detector pixels that are offset horizontally and vertically from each other.
Eyewear
The PTAB instituted IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,708,483; 8,801,174; 8,905,541; and 10,613,355, owned by e-Vision Optics, LLC. The petitions for IPR were filed by Luxottica of America Inc., following e-Vision’s patent infringement suit against Luxottica filed in 2023. The patents relate to eyewear that includes an electronics assembly.
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.