EdisonReport has learned that Philips Lighting has sued Deco Lighting for Patent Infriingement. In addition, we understand that there is some shakeup in attorneyland as the former group of three-piece suits who have represented Philips in IP litigation have been replaced by a new group of three-piece suits. The WAC litigation was filed in May of 2014 by FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP. The Deco Lighting litigation was filed by BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC.
Your humble editor spoke to Sam Sinai, CEO of Deco Lighting, Sam explained, "Deco Lighting has transitioned from legacy technology to a leader in LED faster than most of our peers. This dispute seems to be designed to limit competition. We just received the information and are in the process of reviewing their claims."
The claims are below:
- '014 "Circuit Arrangement, and Signaling Light Provided with the Circuit Arrangement"
- '890 "Led Driver Circuit with PWM Output”
- '399 "Methods and Apparatus for Providing Power to Lighting Devices”
- '599 “LEDs Driver”
- '328 “LED Downlight”
Part of the litigation focuses on drivers that were allegedly reverse engineered by a third party, so why not go after the company that built the drivers? We have learned over the years that Philips does not typically license driver manufactures because the driver cost is relatively small as compared to the cost of a complete fixture. Think of an automobile analogy. Getting 3%, 4% or in some cases 5% royalty of the entire car is more beneficial than the same percentage of, say, the tires.
Philips has a qualified supplier list for LEDs, drivers, and optics. Luminaire manufacturers who purchase from the qualified suppliers are not subject of litigation. EdisonReport has a partial list of qualified suppliers and we hope to provide the entire list next week.