Bench Walk Lighting v. Everlight Electronics: 10-Patent LED Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Bench Walk Lighting LLC filed suit against Taiwanese LED manufacturer Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. in January 2020, asserting infringement of 10 US LED patents across a broad range of Everlight LED products. After 1,351 days of litigation in the Delaware District Court, the parties resolved the case via a Settlement and License Agreement dated September 13, 2023.
A broad LED patent assertion resolved by settlement after nearly four years
Bench Walk Lighting LLC, a patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of LED technology patents, filed Case No. 1:20-cv-00049 in the Delaware District Court on January 14, 2020, before Judge Richard G. Andrews. The complaint targeted Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., a major Taiwanese LED manufacturer, alleging infringement of 10 US patents — including US9887338B2, US7470936B2, US7488990B2, US9209373B2, US7145182B2, US7115428B2, US7239080B2, US7847300B2, US6806658B2, and US7519287B2 — across a range of Everlight LED products including the ELUA3535OGB, EAFL2016W21A0, EAPL3810A1, and other named devices.
The case closed on September 26, 2023, when the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss all claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The stipulation expressly references a 'Settlement and License Agreement' dated September 13, 2023, and provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The specific terms of the settlement and license arrangement are not disclosed in the available public record.
The litigation ran for approximately 1,351 days — nearly four years — before resolving on the eve of the filing deadline. The breadth of the patent portfolio asserted (10 patents) and the explicit reference to a licensing agreement in the dismissal stipulation suggests the resolution may have involved a commercial licensing arrangement, though the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record. What drove the timing of resolution, and the scope of any license granted, remain unknown from the public docket.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1351 days
1,351 days — nearly 3 years and 9 months from filing to closure
US9887338B2 and 9 further LED patents — LED device structures and packaging
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling LED components or LED-integrated lighting products in the US market — particularly SMD LEDs, high-power LED packages, top-view LED modules, or similar solid-state lighting devices — should assess exposure against this 10-patent portfolio. The portfolio's broad technical scope and Bench Walk Lighting's demonstrated willingness to sustain multi-year enforcement campaigns make a proactive freedom-to-operate analysis commercially prudent.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal stipulation is expressly conditioned on a 'Settlement and License Agreement' dated September 13, 2023, and entered pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The with-prejudice designation forecloses any future federal court action by Bench Walk Lighting against Everlight on these specific claims. The mutual cost-bearing provision indicates no fee-shifting finding was recorded. The substantive terms of the referenced agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41
The parties jointly filed a stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all claims with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Bench Walk Lighting cannot re-file the same claims against Everlight in federal court. The stipulation expressly ties the dismissal to a 'Settlement and License Agreement' dated September 13, 2023, though the specific terms of that agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Rule 41 — final, bars re-filingBench Walk secures agreed resolution after four-year campaign
Bench Walk Lighting pursued a 10-patent assertion campaign spanning nearly four years before reaching a resolution that the parties chose to memorialize in a formal settlement and license agreement. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, Bench Walk cannot reassert these specific patents against Everlight on the same claims. The commercial terms of the agreement — including any royalty, lump-sum, or license scope — are not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims extinguished against EverlightEverlight exits litigation with a negotiated agreement in place
Everlight Electronics avoids any court-determined finding of infringement or damages. The dismissal with prejudice, coupled with the referenced Settlement and License Agreement, suggests Everlight has obtained some form of agreed resolution covering the asserted LED patents. Each party bearing its own legal costs indicates no fee-shifting finding was made. The scope of any ongoing obligations or rights granted to Everlight under the agreement is not disclosed in the available public record.
No court finding of infringement10-patent LED portfolio: enforcement signal for the broader LED sector
Bench Walk Lighting's willingness to assert 10 patents simultaneously across multiple LED product lines signals an aggressive, portfolio-level enforcement posture. LED component manufacturers and suppliers using similar device structures, packaging, or emission technologies to those covered by these patents should assess their exposure. The explicit reference to a licensing agreement in the dismissal order suggests that commercial licensing — rather than litigation to judgment — may be the intended end-state for this portfolio.
Portfolio enforcement — LED sector riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bench Walk Lighting, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bradley D. Liddle | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel L. Schmid | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward Marshall Lilly | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kimberly Ann Evans | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael C. Pomeroy | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Barry | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Minghui Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruben Gandia | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott W. Breedlove | Attorney | Counsel for Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Grant & Eisenhofer PA | Law Firm | Representing Bench Walk Lighting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric W. Benisek | Attorney | Counsel for Everlight Electronics Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey T. Lindgren | Attorney | Counsel for Everlight Electronics Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard C. Vasquez | Attorney | Counsel for Everlight Electronics Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert S. McArthur | Attorney | Counsel for Everlight Electronics Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sean T. O'Kelly | Attorney | Counsel for Everlight Electronics Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O'Kelly & O'Rourke LLC | Law Firm | Representing Everlight Electronics Co., LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Richard G. Andrews | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the LED device and solid-state lighting IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Bench Walk Lighting v. Everlight Electronics case — covering LED portfolio activity, filing trends, and white-space opportunities.
Bench Walk Lighting's LED patent portfolio breadth and enforcement history
Bench Walk Lighting holds at least 10 asserted US LED patents spanning chip structures, packaging, and emission technologies. R&D and IP teams at LED manufacturers should map the full Bench Walk portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or related filings — to understand the complete assertion perimeter and identify which product categories carry the highest exposure.
PAE portfolio — LED sectorLED packaging and chip-level patent filing trends post-2020
The asserted patents cover LED device structures and packaging technologies filed primarily in the 2000s–2010s. As these early-generation LED patents approach expiry, monitoring the adjacent filing landscape — including newer claims around phosphor conversion, chip-scale packaging (CSP), and mini/micro-LED structures — helps R&D teams anticipate the next wave of enforcement risk in the solid-state lighting space.
LED packaging — filing trendsEverlight Electronics' US patent portfolio and defensive IP position
As a major global LED manufacturer, Everlight Electronics holds its own US patent portfolio in LED device technologies. Understanding Everlight's filing activity — including cross-licensing leverage and design patents on LED packages — provides competitive intelligence for other LED suppliers assessing both enforcement risk and partnership opportunities in the solid-state lighting supply chain.
Everlight IP — defensive postureAdjacent LED white space: thermal management and optical integration
The Bench Walk portfolio focuses on LED chip and package structures. Adjacent innovation areas — including integrated thermal management substrates, lens-on-chip optical integration, and driver-embedded LED modules — may represent lower-density IP white space for R&D investment. Teams developing next-generation LED lighting systems should explore these adjacencies as potential differentiated filing opportunities.
White space — LED systemsSimilar LED patent infringement cases in Delaware District Court
Explore related LED patent infringement actions filed in the Delaware District Court involving solid-state lighting, LED packaging, and component-level patent assertions.
What this case signals for the LED component IP landscape
A 10-patent assertion resolved by licensing agreement after nearly four years reinforces the enforcement credibility of LED-focused patent portfolios.
Multi-patent LED assertions in Delaware are a credible enforcement vector
Bench Walk Lighting's ability to sustain a 10-patent, multi-product infringement action for nearly four years in the Delaware District Court — ultimately securing a licensing agreement — demonstrates that LED patent portfolios can support protracted, commercially meaningful assertion campaigns. LED manufacturers and their supply chains should treat multi-patent assertion as an elevated risk category.
Each party bearing its own costs removes fee-shifting risk from the public record
The stipulation's mutual cost-bearing clause means no exceptional case finding was recorded, and neither party publicly prevailed on attorneys' fees. For defendants in comparable LED patent disputes, this outcome profile — no fee award, no merits ruling — may inform litigation strategy and settlement calculus. The absence of a court-determined damages figure limits the public benchmarking value of this case.
Bench v Everlight — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 26, 2023, pursuant to a joint stipulation filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The stipulation references a 'Settlement and License Agreement' dated September 13, 2023, with each party bearing its own costs. The specific terms of the agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Bench Walk Lighting asserted 10 US patents: US9887338B2, US7470936B2, US7488990B2, US9209373B2, US7145182B2, US7115428B2, US7239080B2, US7847300B2, US6806658B2, and US7519287B2. The patents cover LED device structures, semiconductor chip configurations, packaging architectures, and light emission technologies.
The accused products identified in the case include the ELUA3535OGB LED, EAFL2016W21A0, EAFL4039W22A0, EAPL3810A1, EAPL4210A0, EL Top View Lens, 61-238/LK2C-B56706F4GB2/ET, 67-23ST/RKE-N279596Z10/SZM/2T LED, and Everlight LED products generally. The complaint covered a broad range of SMD, high-power, and module-type LED components.
The dismissal with prejudice bars Bench Walk Lighting from re-filing the same claims against Everlight in federal court on these 10 patents. However, it does not prevent Bench Walk from asserting the same patents against other defendants, or from asserting different patents against Everlight. The scope of any license granted under the referenced Settlement and License Agreement is not disclosed in the public record.
The case was filed on January 14, 2020, and closed on September 26, 2023 — a duration of 1,351 days, or approximately three years and nine months. The case was heard before Judge Richard G. Andrews in the Delaware District Court.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.