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.
February’s photonics-related IP activities include 44 cases concerning various technologies, including lighting and light sources; cameras, imaging systems, and image processing; solar cells; sensors; displays; medical applications; automotive applications; optical communications; equipment control; and manufacturing. Here are the summaries.
Lighting and light sources
On February 4th, Checkers Industrial Products, LLC d/b/a Checkers Safety Group sued Driver Industrial OPCO, LLC in the District of Colorado for infringement of two patents relating to an LED whip light assembly. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,050,929 and 9,067,536.
AGS Lighting Management LLC sued Jesco Lighting Group, LLC in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,751,302. The patent describes the control of color temperature and luminance in linear LED fixtures.
On February 7th, Coretronic Corporation and Optoma Corporation filed a petition for an Inter Partes Review (IPR) on U.S. Patent No. 9,322,530, owned by Maxell, Ltd. f/k/a Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. The patent describes an LED light source containing multiple LED chips, a phosphor for converting the wavelength of light emitted by the LED chips, and a dichroic mirror to separate the emitted light from the converted light. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by the first week of August.
Luminatronics LLC sued Analog Devices, Inc. and Bourns, Inc. in separate lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,807,836. The patent describes an LED apparatus with control circuitry.
DMF, Inc. won its lawsuit against AMP Plus, Inc. d/b/a ELCO Lighting et al. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,964,266. The patent describes an LED light fixture in which the LED and driver circuit are mounted on a single heatsink, which also includes a reflector. Judge Snyder of the Central District of California imposed a permanent injunction against AMP Plus.
On February 12th, FKA Distributing Co., d/b/a Homedics sued Blulabs Brands LLC in the Southern District of Florida for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,303,300 and 7,652,436. The patents describe methods and systems for illuminating household products, such as fluid products not intended for human consumption.
On February 13th, Lime Green Lighting, LLC sued Jasco Products Company LLC in the Western District of Oklahoma for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,699,874 and 10,798,798. The patents describe a system for self-adaptive, scheduled LED lighting control.
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. 7,951,626, owned by Sinotechnix LLC. The patent describes a method of manufacturing LED devices. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by mid-August.
On February 19th, BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,604,471, owned by Optronic Sciences LLC. The patent describes an OLED that includes a light-shielding barrier layer to reduce material damage resulting from UV exposure during the manufacturing process. BOE Technology filed the petition after being sued by Optronic Sciences for infringement of the patent in July 2024. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by mid-August.
On February 20th, the PTAB instituted IPRs against U.S. Patent Nos. 11,096,252 and 11,533,794, owned by Seasonal Specialties, LLC. The IPRs were sought by LedUp Manufacturing Group, Ltd. after being sued in 2023 by Seasonal Specialties for patent infringement. The patents describe a resistor bypass circuit for a series LED lighting circuit.
On February 21st, SemiLED Innovations LLC sued Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of five patents relating to slim LED packages. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,128,454; 8,309,971; 8,319,246; 8,963,196; and 9,530,942.
On February 25th, the PTAB issued a decision in an IPR for U.S. Patent No. 7,843,148, owned by Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC, declaring all patent claims to be invalid. The patent describes a circuit for driving multiple parallel LEDs with reduced supply ripple. Vizio, Inc. sought the IPR after being sued for patent infringement by Polaris in 2023.
Cameras, imaging systems, and image processing
On February 7th, Contour IP Holding, LLC sued Portable Company T/A Nextbase in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of three patents relating to a hands-free portable video camera configured for remote image acquisition, control, and viewing. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,890,954; 8,896,694; and 12,206,983.
On February 14th, Samsara Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,875,580, owned by Motive Technologies Inc. f/k/a/ Keep Truckin, Inc. The patent describes a method of camera initialization for lane detection and distance estimation using single-view geometry. The petition was filed in response to the patent infringement lawsuit brought against Samsara by Motive Technologies last year. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPR by the middle of August.
On February 19th, Pointwise Ventures LLC sued Boohoo.com UK Limited and The Home Depot, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,471,812. The patent describes a method for identifying an object that includes taking a digital image of the object and letting the user select the object from a list of likely pointed-to objects. Pointwise has asserted the patent against 32 different parties.
VDPP, LLC continued to assert its image-processing patent portfolio in February, suing Medical Device Business Services, Inc. f/k/a DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. 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. VDPP has now asserted the ‘444 patent against 31 different parties and the ‘874 patent against 20 different parties.
On February 24th, the PTAB instituted an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 10,873,685, owned by Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC. The IPR was sought by Olympus Corporation, OM Digital Solutions Corporation, FUJIFILM Corporation, FUJIFILM North America Corporation, Nikon Corporation, and Panasonic Entertainment & Communication Co., Ltd. after Optimum Imaging sued each of the entities for infringement of the patent. The patent describes a digital video camera system that provides on-board aberration correction of digital images. The PTAB is expected to issue a final decision on the validity of the challenged claims by the end of February 2026.
Samsung Electronics America f/k/a Samsung Telecommunications America LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,451,339, owned by Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC. The patent describes a camera system that digitally corrects aberrations in a digital image. Optimum Imaging sued Samsung for infringement of the patent in 2023. Optimum Imaging has asserted the patent against 13 different parties.
On February 26th, Clear Imaging Research, LLC sued Lenovo Group Limited in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of seven patents relating to the digital correction of blurring and camera shake in digital video images. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,484; 9,013,587; 9,800,788; 9,860,450; 10,171,740; 11,165,961; and 11,457,149.
On February 27th, Amazon.com, Inc. filed a petition for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,689,001, owned by Kaifi LLC. The patent describes a method of recognizing location by a mobile camera based on the use of location recognition tags. It is expected that the PTAB will decide whether to institute the IPR by the end of August. Amazon filed the petition in response to being sued by Kaifi for patent infringement in July 2024.
Solar cells
On February 7th, Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. sued Waaree Energies Limited and Waaree Solar Americas Inc. in the Southern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,136. The patent describes a solar cell, a method of making the solar cell, and a photovoltaic module containing the solar cell.
On February 12th, CertainTeed LLC sued GAF Energy LLC in the Western District of Texas for infringement of three patents relating to roofing elements that contain photovoltaic cells. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,375,653; 8,438,796; and 9,178,465.
On February 14th, REC Solar Holdings AS filed petitions for IPRs against three patents owned by Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,222,516; 8,878,053; and 11,251,315, describe front contact solar cells with a formed emitter and solar cells with improved lifetime, passivation, and/or efficiency. The petitions were filed in response to Maxeon’s patent infringement lawsuit filed against REC Solar in 2024. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPRs by mid-August. Hanwha Solutions Corporation f/k/a Hanwha Q Cells & Advanced Materials Corp. II separately filed a petition for an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,222,516.
On February 25th, First Solar, Inc. sued Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. and several other Jinko Solar entities in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,130,074. The patent describes high-efficiency solar cell structures and methods of manufacturing them.
Sensors
On February 10th, Elliptic Works LLC sued Fluidra North America LLC; Fluidra SA; Fluidra USA, LLC; Zodiac Pool Care Europe SAS; Zodiac Pool Systems North America, LLC; and Zodiac Pool systems LLC f/k/a Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,134,913. The patent describes a system for optical communication of signals to control various aspects of a swimming pool.
On February 12th, the PTAB issued a final written decision in a Post Grant Review (PGR) finding all the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,538,349, owned by Honeywell International Inc., to be invalid. The review had been brought by ADB Safegate Sweden AB, ADB Safegate BV, and ADB Safegate Americas, LLC shortly after the patent issued. The patent describes a sensor fusion system that presents combined data from a camera and a LiDAR or radar to a pilot to aid in maneuvering an aircraft around an airport.
On February 14th, the PTAB issued an IPR written decision finding the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,517,484, owned by Omni MedSci, Inc., to be invalid. The IPR was sought by Apple, Inc. The patent describes a wearable device that can take physiological measurements using LEDs.
On February 24th, Gator Bio, Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,647,588, owned by Sartorius Bioanalytical Instruments, Inc. The patent describes a method of packaging the tip of an optical fiber sensor. Sartorius sued Bioanalytical for infringement of the patent in 2022. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPR before the end of August.
Displays
The PTAB instituted IPRs for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,226,801 and 8,158,477, owned by Optronic Sciences LLC. The IPRs were sought by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. after being sued for patent infringement by Optronic Sciences. The first patent describes a liquid-crystal display that has a sealant formed with a particular pattern, while the second relates to the manufacture of an OLED display. The PTAB is expected to issue a final decision in the IPR around mid-February 2026.
On February 18th, the PTAB instituted an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,257,492, owned by Pictiva Displays International Limited. The patent describes a process for manufacturing a component of an organic LED display. The IPR was sought by Samsung Display International Limited after Pictiva sued Samsung for infringement of the patent in October 2023. A final decision on the IPR is expected mid-February 2026.
Paneltouch Technologies LLC sued BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas on February 28th for infringement of five patents relating to tough panel displays. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,704,762; 8,803,836; 9,250,758; 9,507,477; and 11,126,025.
Medical applications
On February 3rd, Omni MedSci, Inc. sued Whoop, Inc. in the District of Delaware for infringement of six patents relating to the optical detection of physiological parameters. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,055,868; 9,651,533; 10,517,484; 10,874,304; 11,160,455; and 12,193,790.
On February 18th, Erchonia Corporation LLC sued David Paul Stepp and The Look Austin, LLC in the Western District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,067 and 9,149,650. The patents relate to a scanning treatment laser and a method of slimming a human body using laser light.
On February 24th, the PTAB instituted an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. The patent describes an adjustable illuminator for photodynamic therapy and diagnosis. The IPR was sought by Biofrontera AG and three other Biofrontera entities after Sun sued Biofrontera for infringement of the patent. The PTAB is expected to issue a final decision on the validity of the challenged claims by the end of February 2026.
Automotive applications
On February 7th, Ralph Venegas sued Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, and Volvo Car USA LLC in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,587,419. The patent describes a collision avoidance detection arrangement.
On February 12th, Lexidine, LLC sued Ford Motor Company in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,609,961. The patent describes a camera that is unobtrusive in appearance and suitable for retrofitting to a vehicle.
On February 18th, Peregrine Data LLC sued Garmin International, Inc. in the Southern District of Florida for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,319,619. The patent describes a method for observing, recording, and recovering visual information during an automobile trip.
Optical communications
On February 19th, Charter Communications, Inc. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,942,378, 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-August.
On February 19th, the PTAB decided in an IPR that the challenged claims (1, 2, and 10-13) of U.S. Patent No. 9,008,483 are invalid. The patent describes an optical fiber cable drop interface box. The IPR was brought by Amphenol Corporation against the patent owner, PPC Broadband, Inc.
On February 27th, the PTAB instituted IPRs against patents owned by Belden Canada ULC, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,795,107 and 11,656,422. The patents relate to modular fiber-optic cassettes. The IPRs were sought by CommScope Technologies LLC after being sued for patent infringement by Belden. The PTAB should issue final written decisions in the IPRs by the end of February 2026.
Equipment control
On February 10th, Google LLC filed two petitions for IPR on U.S. Patent Nos. 9,031,259 and 9,070,374, owned by SoundClear Technologies LLC. The patents describe the use of noise reduction microphones that include a light-emitting device to indicate whether noise reduction conditions are satisfied. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPRs by early August.
Iron Bird LLC sued UAV Systems International Incorporated (3DR) and Red Cat Holdings in separate lawsuits the District of Nevada for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,950. The patent describes an optical sensing system for stabilizing and steering machine controllable vehicles, such as drones. Iron Bird also sued Anduril Industries, Inc., Teledyne FLIR, LLC and Vantage Robotics, LLC in the District of Delaware and Drone-Clone Xperts LLC in the District of New Jersey for infringement of the ‘950 patent. Iron Bird has now sued 14 different parties for infringement of the ‘950 patent.
Manufacturing
On February 3rd, JER Custom Designs, Inc. and Jason Earl Rife sued Boss Laser, LLC; Engraving MacHines Plus Corp; Jason Montello; Kowalski Designs LLC; LensDigital, LLC; Lobo Designs LLC; MyCup.io.LLC; Robin Faro; and Stanley Altshuller in the Middle District of Florida for infringement of two patents that cover a rotary laser engraving device. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 12,090,572 and 12,186,830.
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.