July 29, 2025
Federal Court Reopens $15M LED Tube Lawsuit
Non-parties Philips and MaxLite now central to patent dispute
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reopened one of the lighting industry’s most consequential patent battles — reviving questions about whether two of Super Lighting’s core LED tube patents should have been granted at all.
In a decision issued July 28, the appeals court vacated major parts of a Texas verdict that had awarded over $15 million to Jiaxing Super Lighting, a China-based LED lamp maker, against rival CH Lighting and Texas-based distributor Elliott Electric Supply. The court ordered a new trial on patent validity and damages, citing improper exclusion of key evidence — much of it pointing to rival products from MaxLite and Philips that may have hit the market before Super Lighting filed its patents.
Philips, MaxLite, and the "On-Sale Bar"
The heart of the dispute is Super Lighting’s claim that CH Lighting’s direct-wire T8 LED tubes—sold through private-label brands like Keystone, TCP, and Ushio — infringed on three patents related to LED tube structure and safety features. A 2021 Waco jury sided with Super Lighting, and Judge Alan Albright later doubled the damages against CH and Ruising, citing willful infringement.
But on appeal, CH Lighting argued that two of those patents should never have been granted — because similar technology was already on sale, thanks to industry players like MaxLite and Philips.
CH Lighting presented internal documents showing that Super Lighting’s own engineers had reverse-engineered a Philips LED tube prior to filing their patents. They also offered product literature about a MaxLite tube and attempted to call a MaxLite witness to authenticate it. The trial court blocked both efforts, but the appeals court disagreed—calling the exclusions legally erroneous and harmful to CH Lighting’s case.
That means Philips and MaxLite, though never parties to the lawsuit, could now shape its outcome.
The Fallout for Distributors
While CH Lighting is fighting to knock out the patents entirely, Elliott Electric—one of the country’s largest electrical distributors—is still caught in the middle. The original verdict found Elliott liable for $298,000, even though the company had no direct relationship with CH Lighting. Its only link was reselling Keystone-branded tubes that CH Lighting had allegedly manufactured. This appeals ruling may spell relief for Elliott Electric.
The case raised alarms across the supply chain. How much due diligence is a distributor expected to perform on the patent pedigree of every product they carry — especially when sourcing through reputable domestic brands?
That question will now hover over a second trial in the Western District of Texas, where damages and patent validity will be reargued. Also on the docket: a fresh review of Super Lighting’s damages expert under new evidentiary standards.
In the meantime, a case that once looked like a done deal is very much alive. And Philips and MaxLite, once in the periphery, are now squarely in focus.
