Collection of LED Patent Fighting Stories

When it comes to patents, people really have a love-hate relationship. Some people "make a fortune", some people "get into trouble"; some people "love them deeply" and regard them as treasures, while some people "hate them deeply" and become discolored when talking about "exclusiveness". LED people have a deep "understanding" of patents, and there are countless stories surrounding patents. The editor has compiled several stories about patent disputes for everyone to take a look at. Have fun and think about it too.

Script 1: The story of an employee turning against his boss

Protagonists: Shuji Nakamura, Nichia

Plot: The fact that blue-ray LED won the Nobel Prize in Physics also involved the past "grievances" between Shuji Nakamura, one of the winners, and his old employer Nichia.

Shuji Nakamura joined Nichia Chemical Company in 1979. After several years of hard work, he invented blue LED in 1992 and achieved mass production of blue LED in 1993. Later, Shuji Nakamura left Nichia in 1999 due to a patent dispute with Nichia Chemical and philosophical differences with Nichia Chemical's then management, and was invited to teach at the University of California, Santa Barbara at the invitation of the then president.

After Shuji Nakamura moved to the United States, Nichia Chemical sued Nakamura on the grounds that Nakamura provided patented technology to competitors and allegedly leaked corporate secrets. Shuji Nakamura was dissatisfied with Nichia Chemical's profit from the technology patent and only offered 20,000 yen (approximately RMB 1,147) as an invention reward. He counterattacked and filed an inventor's compensation lawsuit. Many years later, the two parties reached a settlement with 844 million yen (approximately RMB 48,401,400).

Continued: Although the patent dispute between Shuji Nakamura and Nichia Chemical has long come to an end, it subsequently caused quite a stir in the Japanese intellectual property community. In October 2014, news broke that the Patent System Subcommittee of the Intellectual Property Branch of the Industrial Structure Council of the Japan Patent Office drafted an amendment to the Patent Law. In response to the issue of ownership of invention patents of enterprise employees, it planned to amend the current law's provisions that patent rights belong to "employee-owned" and proposed to convert them to "enterprise-owned" under the premise of formulating a reward system. However, such changes have once again raised doubts in the industry. Some industry insiders wrote an article and pointed out, "Will the revised Patent Law hinder and stifle the invention and innovation of enterprises? If so, what hope does Japan have?"

Script 2: "Sniper War" between international celebrities and Taiwanese industry players (1)

Protagonist: Kerui, Hongqi, Dongbei

Supporting role: Jintai Electronics

Plot: On September 16, 2014, Cree stated that it had filed a patent infringement lawsuit with the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in the United States against Taiwanese LED packaging factory Hongqi and Jintai Electronics to protect the intellectual property rights of its own white light LED and other products. At that time, Hongqi and Jintai Electronics did not respond.

However, the plot soon reversed. In December 2014, Hongqi stated that it had sued LED giant Cree and its related companies, Hong Kong Cree and Shanghai Cree Optoelectronics, in the Federal District Court of Northern California on December 5, US time, for infringing on Hongqi's US LED patents.

The "battle" between Cree, Hongqi and Jintai Electronics has not yet been decided, and Cree has pointed its "gun" at another Taiwanese factory - Dongbei. On January 13, Cree filed lawsuits in the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Wisconsin Federal Court respectively, accusing an unlisted American company and Taiwan Dongbei Optoelectronics of infringing on the company's multiple patents related to the design and operation of LED chips, packaging and LED bulbs.

Drama review: Industry analysts say that since Cree took over Taiwan's LED one-stop factory Longda in August 2014, after the two parties announced an alliance for lighting products, they immediately launched a patent offensive against Taiwan's packaging factories in September. After suing Hongqi for infringement, they then filed a lawsuit against Dongbei. Cree is trying every possible means to drive LED light bulbs produced by its rivals out of the U.S. market. In other words, as energy-saving lighting becomes more and more popular, market competition becomes more intense, and there will be fierce battles in court.

Script 3: "Sniper War" between international giants and Taiwanese industry players (2)

Protagonists: Nichia Chemical, Everlight

Plot: Nichia Chemical and Taiwan Everlight Electronics have a long history of "grievances". Everlight once said, "Nichia Chemical has launched a series of patent wars against our company since 2006." The past "entanglements" will not be described in detail. Only by intercepting a few recent "bridges" can we get a glimpse of the leopard.

On May 9, 2011, Everlight filed a request for invalidation trial of Nichia’s JP4530094 patent with the Japan Intellectual Property Office. In May 2014, Everlight stated that it had received a notice of victory from the Japan Intellectual Property Office and determined that Nichia's patent was invalid. At that time, Taiwanese media interpreted it as "Everlight was victorious." However, Nichia immediately responded and pointed out that Nichia will appeal to the Japan Intellectual Property High Court regarding the decision in this case.

While this "entanglement" has not come to an end, Nichia has resorted to a new strategy, filing a lawsuit against Arrow Electronic Australia in the Federal Court of Australia, claiming that the LED products produced by Everlight infringe its Australian patent No. 720234. Everlight responded on June 4, 2014, saying that the patent was invalid. The Japanese Patent No. 4530094, which the Japan Intellectual Property Office recently determined to be invalid for all requested items, is one of the patent families of Nichia's Australian patent.

Outcome: The above case is just the tip of the iceberg in the patent dispute between Nichia Chemical and Everlight. It is difficult to list the locations and number of patents involved in the "drama" between the two parties. Some industry analysts have recently stated that Nichia Chemical has announced that it intends to strengthen its cooperative relationship with Taiwanese manufacturers and will strive to move towards reconciliation. The patent litigation war between Nichia Chemical and Everlight may eventually end in settlement.

Script 4: The “showdown” of phosphor giants

Protagonists: Intermec, Mitsubishi Chemical

Plot: The nitride type red phosphor involved in Korean patent number 816693 is jointly owned by Mitsubishi Chemical and the Independent Materials Science Institute, collectively known as CASN and SCASN, and is widely used in LEDs, lighting equipment, displays, etc. In addition to South Korea, Mitsubishi Chemical has also registered patents in Japan, the United States, China, and Taiwan, and also holds many other patents related to CASN and SCASN phosphors.

Mitsubishi Chemical and the Independent Materials Science Research Institute once accused Intermet of infringing its patent rights for red phosphors in South Korea. On September 7, 2012, Interme filed a patent invalidity defense with the Korean Patent Court against Mitsubishi Chemical's patent infringement lawsuit. On April 30, 2013, the court rejected the defense and ruled that the patent was valid. Intermec appealed against the verdict, and the Korean Patent Court upheld the original verdict on June 3, 2014.

Script 5: "Single fight" or "Group fight"?

Protagonist: Boston University, several Taiwanese manufacturers, Cree

Plot: Boston University holds the key "high insulation single crystal gallium nitride film" US patent US 5,686,738, and sues dozens of LED manufacturers and terminal brand manufacturers, including Nichia, Bridgelux, Epistar, Everlight, Lite-On, Acer, Seoul Semiconductor, Samsung and other LED manufacturers are the targets of Boston University's lawsuit.

It is worth noting that Boston University’s litigation strategy also shifted to controlling end-brand manufacturers in 2013, and almost all major global display, computer and mobile phone manufacturers were spared. According to statistics, Boston University has initiated this wave of planned lawsuits, with nearly 46 lawsuits filed since October 2012. Judging from the current litigation status, manufacturers including Nichia, AXT, Bridgelux, and Honeywell have reached settlements with Boston University, while patent litigation between Taiwanese LED manufacturers Epistar, Everlight, Lite-On, and Acer and Boston University is still ongoing.

Drama review: Industry insiders pointed out that Boston University’s patent strength and litigation attitude should not be underestimated. In recent years, the strategy of expanding litigation targets from LED manufacturers to terminal brand manufacturers has not only made many Taiwanese terminal brands the subject of patent litigation, but Boston University’s Daxing litigation has also put the entire Taiwan supply chain on alert. , industry players believe that Boston University’s action of filing a lawsuit against about 30 terminal brand manufacturers in one fell swoop is more than just a warning. Therefore, brand manufacturers are more cautious in selecting patent-protected products when selecting suppliers, and the impact of patent litigation on supply chain dynamics needs to be continuously observed.

Script Six: The "Patent History" of a Century-old Factory

Protagonist: GE Lighting, CRS

Plot: On December 28, 2012, the electronic lighting department of GE, a century-old American company, sued six companies whose products were marketed in the United States, including CRS, Technical Consumer Products, and Lights of America, for infringement of lighting devices. GE infringed on its US patents 6,799,864 and 6,787,999 for the lighting devices of six companies, involving the design of LED heat sink fins, systems, and the design of replacing existing lamps.

In February 2014, GE Lighting announced that GE Lighting had reached a settlement with lighting company CRS regarding GE's 864 and 999 patents, and CRS would pay royalties to obtain the right to use GE's two patents.

Script Seven: The Secret Reconciliation between Royal Philips and Schréder

Protagonist: Philips, Schréder

Plot: Philips sued Schréder in the District Court of Massachusetts for infringing on 12 of its LED patents, which were used in street lights, floodlights, home lighting products and others. In November 2014, Philips announced that it had signed a settlement agreement with Belgian LED manufacturer Schréder to end pending litigation related to LED lighting, and stated that it would not disclose relevant financial details and other terms of the settlement agreement.

Script 8: The "Battle" with No Ending

Plot: On August 11, 2014, Toshiba Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in the Intellectual Property Court against Huashang Optoelectronics, claiming that Huashang Optoelectronics' LED products infringed on its invention patent No. I315588, requiring the company not to manufacture and sell related products and seeking compensation of NT48 million (approximately 9.849 million yuan).

Huashang Optoelectronics stated that it has always attached great importance to intellectual property rights, and all products have obtained patent protection and been certified by customers. If there is a risk of infringement of the company's reputation and related patents, the company will also take necessary measures to protect goodwill and the rights and interests of customers, shareholders, and relevant stakeholders. In addition, Huashang Optoelectronics has held a meeting and explanation with Toshiba representatives and appointed lawyers to conduct relevant work.