August 15, 2023

U.S. ITC Votes to Investigate Signify’s Claims vs. Current

LED patent wars now involve a USITC investigation against Current

The lighting industry has witnessed some significant legal back-and-forth between two large North American lighting players, Current and Signify. The longstanding patent dispute allegations between the parties came to light in June and July when each company sued the other – all centered on the legitimacy of Signify’s patent infringement claims.

Current sued Signify in June. Signify filed two lawsuits against Current in July. To date, inside.lighting has been the only industry media site to report that not just two, but three legal actions were initiated by Signify against Current, with the third occurring with the United States International Trade Commission (USITC).

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

The USITC yesterday voted to investigate Signify’s claims against Current concerning specific LED lighting devices, their power supplies, their components, and products incorporating them. The root of this investigation can be traced back to the complaints lodged by Signify in the two Delaware lawsuits filed in July. They allege violations relating to the import and sale of products they believe infringe on their patents. Signify’s main request from the USITC is the issuance of a limited exclusion order along with a cease and desist order.

Current denies any wrongdoing. In July, the company shared, in part, "There's nothing new here. We remain committed to respecting real patents and real claims -- and fighting bad ones. We will continue to defend our positions as we first communicated in the case we filed first in Massachusetts."

Specifics of the claim:

The crux of the complaint revolves around specific patent numbers: U.S. Patent No. 8,063,577; U.S. Patent No. 9,119,268; and U.S. Patent No. 8,070,328. It is asserted that products being imported and sold in the U.S. are in direct violation of the claims of these patents. The complaint emphasizes the existence of an industry in the U.S., as per the requirements of the relevant Federal Statute.

Just by initiating this investigation, USITC hasn’t taken any sides regarding the merits of the case. The case will be assigned to one of the USITC’s administrative law judges (ALJ), who will then schedule and conduct a thorough evidentiary hearing. The ALJ’s findings, specifically their initial determination regarding any violation of section 337, will undergo scrutiny by the Commission.

Patent No.	Patent Description	Accused Products	Allegations
8,063,577	A driver circuit for operating a light emitting diode (LED). The driver controls the current supplied to the LED and has specific circuitry features, including a resonant capacitor, a transformer, and a buffer circuitry with an inductor to ensure a constant current to the LED.	Lumination LED Recessed Luminaire, Other products substantially similar to Lumination LED Recessed Luminaire with similar features	The Lumination LED Recessed Luminaire and other similar products contain circuit elements that directly correspond to the '577 Patent's specifications. For example, they include a resonant capacitor, a transformer, and a buffer circuitry with an inductor, as outlined in the patent.
8,070,328	An LED downlight fixture with a unique multi-piece reflector assembly and a diffuser that helps regulate thermal connectivity.	LRXBR 6inch Downlight	The LRXBR 6inch Downlight product matches the specific design attributes mentioned in claim 1 of the patent '328, such as having an array of LEDs in thermal connectivity with a heatsink, a multi-piece reflector assembly, and a diffuser.
9,119,268	A driver circuit used for driving a light circuit that includes at least one light-emitting diode. It includes components like an isolation transformer and two capacitance elements with specific characteristics.	Albeo LED Luminaire (Modular High & Low Bay)	The plaintiff, Signify, asserts that Current's product, the Albeo LED Luminaire (Modular High & Low Bay), infringes the patent as it includes an UltraMax™ Programmable LED Driver which operates LEDs in a way described by the patent. Furthermore, the product also includes isolation transformers and capacitance elements matching the description of the patent claim.

The Commission has officially opened the investigation, and the Chief Administrative Law Judge will soon appoint the presiding Administrative Law Judge for this case.

Background

June 22, 2023: Current vs. Signify

Current filed a lawsuit against Signify in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenging Signify's allegations of patent infringement on 18 of its patents.

In addition, Current has expressed concerns about the workings of Signify’s EnabLED patent licensing program. During discussions aimed at addressing patent issues, Signify reportedly listed patents they believed Current infringed upon without providing detailed infringement explanations.

Current denies these infringement claims, arguing that its products do not incorporate the patented features Signify alleges. The company is seeking a court declaration that its products do not violate Signify's patents.

July 14, 2023: Signify vs. Current

Signify files two lawsuits against Current in Delaware courts.
Signify initiates a third legal action with the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), asserting that Current has violated its patents.

August 14, 2023: