CH Lighting v. Jiaxing Super Lighting: Federal Circuit Splits Verdict on 8 LED Tube Lamp Patents
CH Lighting Technology, Elliott Electric Supply, and Shaoxing Ruising Lighting took on Jiaxing Super Lighting and Obert over eight US LED tube lamp patents. After 843 days before the Federal Circuit, the court issued a mixed ruling — affirming some claims, reversing others, and remanding — leaving the final competitive landscape unresolved.
A high-stakes LED patent battle returns to the district court
Filed in April 2023, Case No. 23-1715 brought CH Lighting Technology Co., Elliott Electric Supply, and Shaoxing Ruising Lighting before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an infringement action against Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co. and Obert, Inc. The dispute centred on eight US patents covering LED tube lamp technology — a product category at the heart of the global commercial lighting transition away from fluorescent systems.
On July 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a split disposition: affirming certain lower court rulings, reversing others, vacating additional portions, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. A portion of the appeal was also dismissed. This mixed outcome means neither side achieved a clean appellate victory — the plaintiffs preserved some patent positions while losing others, and the case now returns to the district court level on the remanded issues.
The 843-day appellate duration suggests a factually and legally complex record, consistent with multi-patent LED cases involving overlapping claim constructions and technical distinctions between lamp driver architectures. The remand leaves commercial uncertainty for both sides: Jiaxing’s product freedom is not fully resolved, and the plaintiffs must relitigate aspects of their infringement and validity positions. The precise financial stakes and any settlement posture remain absent from the public record.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 843 days
843 days at the Federal Circuit — well above median appellate pendency for patent cases
Federal Circuit’s split decision: what affirmed, reversed, and remanded means here
What a mixed Federal Circuit disposition actually means
When the Federal Circuit affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and vacates-in-part, it is issuing separate rulings on distinct claim sets or legal issues within the same case. ‘Affirmed’ means the lower court’s ruling on those issues stands. ‘Reversed’ means the appellate court found legal error and overturns that portion. ‘Vacated’ nullifies the lower ruling and typically triggers a remand for reconsideration under corrected legal standards.
Complex appellate dispositionPartial preservation — but remand keeps pressure on
CH Lighting and co-plaintiffs secured appellate affirmance on at least some of their patent positions, meaning those rulings cannot be re-litigated on the same grounds. However, the reversed and vacated portions represent setbacks — claims or infringement findings the Federal Circuit found erroneous. The remand forces plaintiffs to re-engage at the district court level, extending litigation costs and timeline without a final judgment.
Partial win, litigation continuesJiaxing gains ground but faces further exposure
Jiaxing Super Lighting and Obert secured reversals on certain aspects of the lower court’s findings against them, which typically suggests the district court applied an incorrect legal standard or claim construction favourable to the plaintiffs. The portion of the appeal that was dismissed may limit certain arguments going forward. However, the affirmed portions sustain adverse rulings, and the remand preserves ongoing infringement exposure across the remaining LED tube lamp claims.
Partial reversal, not full exonerationLED tube lamp IP: continued enforcement risk after remand
A split Federal Circuit ruling on eight LED tube lamp patents signals that this technology space remains actively contested. Competitors sourcing or distributing LED tube lamps — particularly retrofit fluorescent replacements — should note that multiple patent families remain in play. The remand extends the period of IP uncertainty, and an eventual district court judgment on remanded issues could reset the enforceability landscape across the entire product category.
Ongoing sector IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | LED lighting manufacturers and supply — holders of 8 LED tube lamp patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Elliott Electric Supply, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shaoxing Ruising Lighting Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. | Company | Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co. and Obert, Inc. — LED lamp manufacturers and distributorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Obert, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexandra C. Eynon | Attorney | Counsel for CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Caleb HayesDeats | Attorney | Counsel for CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey A. Lamken | Attorney | Counsel for CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lucas M. Walker | Attorney | Counsel for CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Swara Saraiya | Attorney | Counsel for CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | MoloLamken LLP | Law Firm | Representing CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Abigail A. Gardner | Attorney | Counsel for Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dan L. Bagatell | Attorney | Counsel for Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Evan Skinner Day | Attorney | Counsel for Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph P. Reid | Attorney | Counsel for Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s disposition — ‘AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED’ — is one of the most complex appellate outcomes in patent litigation. It indicates the court conducted independent analysis of multiple distinct issues or patent claims and reached different conclusions on each. Under Federal Circuit review, claim construction is reviewed de novo, while factual findings underlying infringement and validity are reviewed for clear error. The remand instruction requires the district court to apply the Federal Circuit’s corrected legal standards to the outstanding issues, meaning this dispute is unlikely to reach final resolution without additional proceedings.
Eight US LED Tube Lamp Patents — CH Lighting Technology Portfolio
The eight patents in suit — US10426003, US10295125, US10448479, US10342078, US10378700, US10560989, US10352540, and US9939140 — form a coherent portfolio directed at LED tube lamp technology, covering aspects of driver circuitry, power supply architecture, ballast compatibility, and lamp system design. Filed across application numbers ranging from US15/339221 to US16/373200, these patents reflect iterative development of LED retrofit lamp systems designed to replace traditional fluorescent T8 and T5 fixtures in commercial environments.
Strategically, this portfolio represents a defensive and offensive moat around a high-volume, commoditising product category. LED tube lamps are manufactured at scale across China and distributed globally, meaning even narrow claims can have outsized commercial impact when asserted against major suppliers. The involvement of Elliott Electric Supply as a co-plaintiff suggests supply-chain-level enforcement — protecting distribution rights alongside manufacturing IP. The Federal Circuit’s mixed ruling means portions of this portfolio remain enforceable and commercially potent.
Should your team run an FTO against CH Lighting’s LED tube lamp portfolio?
Any company designing, importing, distributing, or sourcing LED tube lamps — particularly T8 or T5 retrofit products — should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk. Eight patents survive (at least in part) a Federal Circuit review, and the remand suggests further claim-level adjudication is forthcoming. OEMs, distributors, and private-label brands operating in the North American LED lighting market are the most directly exposed. The affirmed claims in particular warrant immediate FTO analysis.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s circuit and driver architecture against the claim language of each of the eight asserted patents, flagging overlap risk at the claim element level. Eureka’s citation analysis also surfaces continuation applications and related family members that may extend the portfolio’s reach beyond the eight patents already litigated — giving your IP and engineering teams the full picture before a product launch or procurement decision.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10426003 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit LED lighting patent infringement appeals
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving LED tube lamp and solid-state lighting patents, including comparable multi-patent assertion and mixed-disposition cases.
What this case signals for the LED lighting IP landscape
A split Federal Circuit ruling across eight patents signals sustained enforcement intensity in LED tube lamp technology — with remand ensuring the dispute is far from over.
Multi-patent LED lamp portfolios are actively litigated at the Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit’s willingness to parse eight separate LED tube lamp patents individually — affirming some, reversing others — confirms that claim-by-claim distinctions matter enormously in this space. Companies competing in the LED retrofit market should audit each asserted claim family independently rather than treating a portfolio loss as a portfolio win.
Remand outcomes often drive licensing settlements — watch for resolution
When the Federal Circuit remands after a split ruling, the economic calculus for settlement typically shifts. Plaintiffs know which claims survived appellate scrutiny; defendants know where they have cover. Monitoring the district court docket on remand for settlement filings or consent judgments is a key competitive intelligence move for LED lamp manufacturers.
CH v Jiaxing — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in Case No. 23-1715, affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and vacating-in-part the lower court’s decision, and remanding for further proceedings. A portion of the appeal was also dismissed. The case involved eight LED tube lamp patents asserted by CH Lighting Technology, Elliott Electric Supply, and Shaoxing Ruising Lighting against Jiaxing Super Lighting and Obert, Inc.
Eight US patents were at issue: US10426003, US10295125, US10448479, US10342078, US10378700, US10560989, US10352540, and US9939140. All relate to LED tube lamp technology, covering circuit architecture, driver design, power supply systems, and retrofit lamp compatibility. The application numbers span filings from approximately 2016 to 2019.
This disposition means the Federal Circuit upheld the lower court’s findings on some issues (affirmed), found legal error and overturned others (reversed), and nullified additional rulings for reconsideration under correct legal standards (vacated). The remand sends outstanding issues back to the district court. Practically, it means certain patent claims may be enforceable while others require re-adjudication.
The appeal was pending for 843 days, from filing on April 7, 2023, to closure on July 28, 2025. This is notably longer than median Federal Circuit patent appeal pendency, which typically ranges from 18 to 24 months, suggesting a factually complex record with multiple patent claims requiring individual appellate analysis.
CH Lighting and co-plaintiffs were represented by MoloLamken LLP, with attorneys including Jeffrey A. Lamken, Alexandra C. Eynon, Caleb Hayes-Deats, Lucas M. Walker, and Swara Saraiya. Jiaxing Super Lighting and Obert were represented by Perkins Coie LLP, with attorneys including Dan L. Bagatell, Abigail A. Gardner, Evan Skinner Day, and Joseph P. Reid.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.