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.
March’s photonics-related IP activities include 32 cases concerning various technologies, including lighting and light sources; cameras, imaging systems and image processing; displays; sensors; medical and dental applications; virtual reality/augmented reality; photogrammetry; LiDAR; equipment control; and optical data storage.
Lighting and light sources
On March 6th, Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting filed petitions for Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,604,678 and 8,614,539, owned by Feit Electric Company. The patents describe a wavelength-conversion component for a white-light light-emitting diode (LED) that includes a photoluminescent material and a light-scattering material to scatter light from the LED that is not wavelength-converted in the photoluminescent material. Savant Technologies was joined by Elong International USA, Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co. Ltd. in the petition for the ’539 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should decide by early September whether to institute the IPRs.
On March 6th, the PTAB instituted two IPRs on claims 34-37 and 40-46 of U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389, owned by Pictiva Displays International Limited. The patent describes a method of encapsulating organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) for use in a display. The IPRs were sought by Samsung Display Co. Ltd. after Pictiva sued Samsung for patent infringement in July 2024. The PTAB is expected to issue a written decision on the validity of the claims by early March 2026.
On March 10th, 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. 9,412,913, owned by Sinotechnix LLC. The patent discloses a method of packaging an LED in a slim package. The petition was filed in response to Sinotechnix suing Samsung in July 2024 for infringement of the patent. The PTAB should decide by early September whether to institute the IPR.
On March 14th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the appeals court with jurisdiction for patent cases, issued an opinion reversing a PTAB decision in an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 10,517,149, owned by Lynk Labs Inc. The PTAB had found claims 1 and 4 of the patent invalid, but not claim 2. Claim 1 describes a lighting system that includes a circuit for driving an LED from a main power source. Claim 2 states that the driver is configured to receive at least two different AC voltages. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., who had petitioned for the IPR, appealed the decision finding claim 2 valid. The CAFC agreed with Home Depot, finding that the prior art taught the limitation of claim 2.
On March 19th, Semisilicon Technology Corp. sued Amazon.com Inc., Changzhou Jutai Electronic Co. Ltd., Linhai Caiyuan Trading Co. Ltd., Maanshan Haoluo Maoyi Youxian Gongsi, Ningbo Yihai Yangtian Lighting Co. Ltd., and Taizhou Feixin Dengshi Youxian Gongsi in the Northern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,939,117 and 10,187,935. The patents describe LED lighting systems made from individual units with programmable addresses, where control signals for the units are superimposed over the power signal that drives the LEDs.
On March 20th, EdisonLED LLC sued Bulbrite Industries Inc. in the Northern District of Texas for infringement of 11 patents relating to LED-based light bulbs. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,560,738; 8,240,881; 8,492,780; 9,065,022; 9,368,483; 9,664,340; 10,224,455; 10,282,123; 10,319,703; 11,519,564; and 11,808,436. EdisonLED also sued Halco Lighting Technologies LLC in the Northern District of Georgia for infringement of the same patents, except for the ’564 patent.
In a narrow opinion, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s finding that claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,964,266, owned by DMF Inc., is valid. The patent discloses a compact lighting system based on LEDs that can be installed in a standard electrical junction box. DMF sued AMP Plus Inc. d/b/a ELCO Lighting for infringement of the patent, following which ELCO pursued an IPR to invalidate the asserted claims of the ‘266 patent. The PTAB originally found several claims to be valid, which finding was affirmed by the CAFC. However, the CAFC also found that the PTAB had not directly addressed claim 22 and remanded the case to the PTAB to evaluate the patentability of claim 22. The PTAB found that it was valid, and ELCO again appealed to the CAFC, but the CAFC again affirmed the PTAB.
On March 28th, Jiangmen Pengjiang Tianli New Tech Co. Ltd. sued multiple entities in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,863,608. The patent describes a signal-generating driver for an LED system.
Cameras, imaging systems, and image processing
On March 4th, Shockwatch Inc. d/b/a SpotSee sued Four M Commercial Operations LLC in the Southern District of New York for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,147,025. The patent describes a camera and image processing system for recognizing a visual indicator on an object, for example an indicator on a shipping box that indicates whether the box has been exposed to certain environmental conditions or subject to a sudden deceleration, has been dropped.
The PTAB agreed to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent No. 9,671,328, owned by Mandli Communications Inc. and Facet Technology Corp. The IPR was sought by Mobileye Global Inc. after being sued for patent infringement by Facet Technology. The patent relates to an automobile camera system that recognizes road markers in the camera’s field of view. The PTAB should reach a decision in the IPR by early March 2026.
Contour IP Holding LLC filed a single lawsuit against DJI Europe BV, DJI Industrial Inc., DJI Service LLC, DJI Technology Inc., iFlight Technology Company Ltd., Saikoron LLC, and SZ DJI Technology Co. Ltd. in the Central District of California for infringement of three patents relating to a 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 March 17th, Electronic Scripting Products Inc. sued A2 Consulting LLC in the Southern District of Ohio for infringement of three patents relating to systems for determining the absolute pose of an object in a three-dimensional environment. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,826,641; 9,229,540; and 10,191,559.
ImmerVision Inc. sued Apple Inc. in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,259,525. The patent relates to a miniature wide-angle lens system that may be used in the camera of, for example, a mobile phone or tablet device.
On March 31st, the PTAB declined to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent No. D789435, owned by GoPro Inc. The patent covers the design for a camera body. The IPR had been sought by Arashi Vision Inc. US d/b/a Insta360, who had been sued for infringement by GoPro in March 2024.
Displays
On March 7th, BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 8,502,757, owned by Optronic Sciences LLC. The patent describes a driving circuit for an OLED display. Optronic sued BOE Technology for infringement of the patent in July 2024. The PTAB will decide by early September whether to institute the IPR.
Bishop Display Tech LLC sued BOE Technology Group Co. Ltd. in two different patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas. The patents in the first suit, which relate to liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,525,798; 6,787,829; 6,801,293; 6,816,208; 6,850,303; and 6,906,769. The patents in the second suit, which relate to LCDs and a driving circuit for an LED to light a LCD display, are 7,414,682; 7,583,347; 7,995,047; and 8,093,830.
On March 21st, Light Guide Innovations LLC sued Walmart Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for the infringement of 16 patents, all relating to LCDs used in TVs sold by Walmart. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,922,380; 7,936,415; 8,052,307; 8,213,093; 8,237,352; 8,267,537; 8,395,183; 8,408,778; 8,506,122; 8,562,200; 8,616,729; 8,723,411; 8,823,048; 9,534,744; 9,638,378; and 10,030,823. Light Guide Innovations has sued 13 different parties for infringement of the patents.
The CAFC issued on opinion in appeals from two IPRs on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,624,850 and 9,569,093, owned by Power2B Inc. The IPRs were sought by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. after being sued for patent infringement by Power2B. The patents relate to interactive displays with gesture sensing. In the IPRs, the PTAB found that certain claims of the ’850 patent and the ’093 patent were valid, while other claims of the ’850 patent and the ’093 patent were invalid. The CAFC agreed with the PTAB’s finding of invalidity. However, the CAFC reversed the finding of validity for two of the claims and remanded the finding of validity for the remainder of the claims for reconsideration based on a different construction of the term “detector assembly” than the one used in IPRs.
Sensors
On March 4th, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431, except claims 11 and 13, are unpatentable. The patent describes camera-based sensing in handheld, mobile, and gaming devices to provide computer input based on parts of, or objects held by, a user. The patent had been asserted by Gesture Technology Partners LLC in lawsuits against Apple Inc., LG Electronics, and Google, who filed independent petitions for IPR against the patent. The IPRs were consolidated and the PTAB ultimately issued a decision that all claims, except claims 11 and 13, were invalid. Gesture appealed the finding of invalidity, while the petitioners appealed the decision that claims 11 and 13 were valid. The CAFC’s affirmance means that the only recourse left to either side is to appeal to the Supreme Court. In a separate decision, the CAFC dismissed Gesture’s appeal that claims of the ’431 patent were found invalid in another IPR, brought by Unified Patents LLC, citing to the Apple decision mentioned above. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s refusal to permit Gesture additional discovery during the Unified Patents IPR, on the basis that the request for additional discovery was made too late.
On March 11th, Apple Inc. and Sony Group Corp. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 11,721,714, owned by SiOnyx LLC. The patent describes approaches to isolating pixels in an array detector. The petition was filed in response to SiOnyx suing Apple for patent infringement in September 2024. The PTAB should decide whether to institute an IPR by the middle of September.
On March 20th, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. sued Teledyne FLIR LLC and Teledyne Technologies Inc. in the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,063,369. The patent describes a bolometer element formed from two bolometers with different heating resistances, and a bolometer cell having several bolometer elements formed in a one- or two-dimensional matrix.
Medical and dental applications
In a final written decision, the PTAB determined that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,755,409, owned by Dental Monitoring SAS, are invalid. The patent relates to a method of acquiring and analyzing an image of a dental arch for orthodontic treatment. The IPR was brought by Align Technology, Inc. after Dental Monitoring sued it for patent infringement in 2022.
On March 11th, Erchonia Corp. LLC sued The Body Refine Studio LLC and Waree Dorsey-Williams in the Middle District of Louisiana for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,067 and 9,149,650. The patents describe the use of a laser for slimming a human body and a mechanism for scanning a laser beam.
On March 26th, Dentsply Sirona Inc. f/k/a Dentsply International Inc. filed petitions for IPRs on three patents owned by Osseo Imaging LLC. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,381,301; 6,944,262; and 8,498,374 describe a system and method for dental and orthopedic densitometry modeling. Osseo Imaging previously sued Dentsply for infringement of the patents. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute IPRs on the patents by the end of September.
Virtual reality/augmented reality (VR/AR)
Meta Platforms Inc. f/k/a/ Facebook Inc. filed petitions for IPR on eight patents owned by Mullen Industries LLC. The patents are 8,585,476; 9,744,448; 10,179,277; 10,828,559; 10,967,270; 11,033,821; 11,376,493; and 12,019,791. The patents describe systems for providing 3D video game indicia to a player based on the current physical location of the player. The PTAB should decide whether to institute the IPRs by the end of September. Meta filed the petitions in response to being sued by Mullen for patent infringement in April 2024.
On March 31st, Google LLC sued EyesMatch Ltd. in the Northern District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,982,109 and 8,982,110. The patents disclose systems and methods for virtualizing a mirror in a video feed.
Photogrammetry
On March 10th, Pointivo Inc. sued 5x5 Technologies Inc. in the Middle District of Florida for the infringement of five patents relating to photogrammetry, the procurement of measurements from photographs, especially the size and shape of one or more objects in the field of view. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,460,517; 9,886,774; 9,904,867; 11,043,026; and 11,935,288.
On March 25th, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decisions that the challenged claims of three patents owned by QuantifiCare S.A. are not patentable. U.S. Patent Nos. 10,070,119; 10,165,253; and 10,681,334 all relate to a portable stereophotogrammetry system useful for reconstructing images in 3D and measuring characteristics and changes in a patient’s head and body surfaces. The IPRs had been sought by Canfield Scientific Inc. after being sued by QuantifiCare for patent infringement.
LiDAR
The PTAB issued final written decisions in IPRs that the challenged claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 11,178,381; 11,175,405; and 11,190,750, owned by Ouster Inc., are invalid. The patents teach a LiDAR system having a rotating platform for the transmitter and receiver and an optical imaging system having a plurality of sense channels. In a separate decision, the PTAB found that the claims of Ouster’s U.S. Patent No. 11,287,515 are valid. The ‘515 patent describes a rotating LiDAR unit that uses a stator driver circuit to rotate the LiDAR head. The IPRs had been sought by Hesai Technology Co. Ltd. after being sued by Ouster for infringement.
Equipment control
Iron Bird LLC sued Skydio Inc. in the District of Delaware 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 has now sued 15 different parties for infringement of the ‘950 patent.
Optical data storage
On March 31st, Microsoft Corp. filed a petition for IPR on U.S. Patent No. 7,266,055, owned by TS-Optics Corp. The patent relates to an optical pickup actuator and an optical disk drive using the actuator. The petition was filed in response to TS-Optics suing Microsoft for infringement of the patent in September 2024. The PTAB is expected to decide whether to institute the IPR by the end of September.
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.