Two weeks after Philips Lighting filed a patent infringement complaint against 9 lighting companies, including several NAED members, with the U.S. International Trade Commission, WAC Lighting has filed its official response.
In its initial complaint, Philips alleges “violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain led lighting devices, led power supplies, and components thereof.”
The complaint, filed on September 21, names as respondents:
- Feit Electric Company, Inc. of Pico Rivera, CA;
- Feit Electric Company Inc. (China) of China;
- Lowe’s Companies, Inc. of Mooresville, NC; L G Sourcing, Inc. of North Wilkesboro, NC;
- MSi Lighting, Inc. of Boca Raton, FL; RAB Lighting Inc. of Northvale, NJ; Satco Products, Inc. of Brentwood, NY;
- Topaz Lighting Corp. of Holtsville, NY;
- Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. of Port Washington, NY; and WAC Lighting (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. of China.
The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents’ alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.CC. 1337(j).
WAC Lighting responded to the complaint with the International Trade Commission on October 5, calling it a “repetitive action” against WAC Lighting, since the case is already being heard in district court. WAC Lighting goes on to call this, “the latest step in a years-long aggressive campaign by Complainants to force lighting companies such as WAC Lighting to pay onerous and improper royalties for a large portfolio of patents that are likely invalid or not infringed.” WAC Lighting also fired back at Philips, accusing them of filing these accusations to increase the cost of LED lighting and create a barrier from further acceptance of LED products.
WAC Lighting goes on to claim Philips is using its patents to force smaller lighting manufacturers to pay Philips a flat rate to make LED products, even if the products do not contain the patented material. WAC Lighting believes many companies are paying Philips the flat fee to avoid litigation expenses, which may be more costly.
Philips Lighting did file a its own response to the WAC Lighting claims, saying the public interest favors the protection of intellectual property and should favor companies like Philips who invest domestically in innovation. It calls the use of Philip Lighting’s patents, “unfair competition, allowing them to benefit from Philips Lighting’s years of research, development, and innovation without payment.
Tagged with patent infringement, Philips Lighting, WAC lighting