Trade Commission Rules Against Philips In Patent Case

The United States International Trade Commission ruled Feit Electric Company, Lowe’s Companies, and Satco did not infringe on patents owned by Philips Lighting (which changed its name to Signify during the process). The commission did rule against MSi Lighting because the company defaulted and did not respond to the complaint.

As lightED reported previously, the initial patent infringement case filed by Philips included 9 lighting manufacturers, including a number of NAED-member companies, claiming the companies infringed on patents filed by Philips, and as a result, asked the International Trade Commission to issue cease and desist orders to prevent the importation of the products. lightED also reported Topaz decided to settle the claim for an undisclosed amount, with the agreement that there would be no other allegations.  WAC Lighting, another company named in the complaint, described it as “repetitive”, since the case has been in litigation in a U.S. District Court for the past three years. WAC later settled with Philips.

In its written ruling, the International Trade Commission said, “Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the petitions, responses, and other submissions from the parties and the public, the Commission has determined that Complainants have not proven a violation of section 337 by Respondents. Specifically, the Commission has determined that Complainants failed to show that any accused product satisfies the “controller” limitation of claims 7 and 8 of the ’399 patent and failed to show that any accused product satisfies the “adjustment circuit” limitation of the claims 17-19 of the ’399 patent. Consequently, the Commission finds that Complainants failed to establish that any of Respondents’ accused products infringes any claim of the ’399 patent. The Commission further finds that Complainants failed to show that any of Respondents’ accused products is representative of any other accused product. Finally, the Commission has determined to take no position on the ID’s findings that Complainants satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through investments under section 337(a)(3)(A) and (B) with respect to the ’399 patent, and the ID’s findings that Complainants satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through investments under section 337(a)(3)(C) with respect to the ’554 patent.”

But, the commission did rule against MSi Lighting, writing, “With respect to defaulted respondent MSi Lighting, Complainants request a remedy only with respect to the ’399 patent. Under section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)), the Commission presumes that the allegations in the complaint are true, including the allegations that MSi Lighting infringes claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ’399 patent and that Complainants satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to the ’399 patent. The Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order prohibiting MSi Lighting from importing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), or soliciting U.S. agents or distributors of imported LED devices, LED power supplies, and components that infringe claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ’399 patent.”

The commission has concluded the investigation, and ending its written ruling with, “The Commission’s notice, orders, and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance. The Commission has also notified the Secretary of the Treasury and Customs and Border Protection of the order. The investigation is hereby terminated.”

You can read the entire ruling here.