Epistar, Corp. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 28 Apr 2017 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 20 Nov 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case accepted in part.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7560738B2US8492780B2US6346771B1US8587020B2US8791467B2
- Case no.
- 2:17-cv-03219
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- C.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Apr 2017 – 20 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 2397 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Accepted in Part
- Products & marks
- The Kichler Lighting 60 W Equivalent Dimmable Soft White A15 Led Decorative Light Bulb (Manufacturer Part Number: YGA16A08-A15C-CL-5W) · UTILITECH 60 W Equivalent Warm White A19 LED Light Fixture Light Bulb (Manufacturer Part Number: YGA03A41-A19-9W-830)
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Light-emitting diode array having an adhesive layer
A light-emitting diode array includes a substrate, an adhesive layer formed on the substrate, and a plurality of electrically connected epitaxial light-emitting stack layer disposed on the adhesive layer. Each of the epitaxial light-emitting stack layer has a P-contact and an N-contact coplanar to the P-contact. The light-emitting diode array has improved heat ventilation characteristics.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 14 Jul 2009
- Earliest priority
- 13 Apr 2004
- Est. expiry
- 16 Sep 2024
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2018-00953 · Other · filed by Lowe’s Home Centers LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LIU, WEN-HUANG
- Classification
- H01L29/88H01L25/075H01L27/15H01L29/04H01L29/15H01L31/036H01L33/00H01L33/08H01L33/10H01L33/28H01L33/32H10W70/60
- Prosecution counsel
- QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC
- Examiner
- TOLEDO, FERNANDO L
Light-emitting device and manufacturing method thereof
A light emitting device and a method of fabricating thereof are provided. The method of fabricating the light emitting device comprises: providing a substrate having a first major surface and a second major surface; forming a plurality of light-emitting stacks on the first major surface; forming an etching protection layer on each of the light emitting stacks; forming a plurality of holes by a discontinuous laser beam on the substrate; etching the plurality of holes; and slicing off the substrate along the plurality of holes to form a light emitting device. The light emitting device has a substrate wherein the sidewall of the substrate comprising a first area with a substantially flat surface and a second area with substantially textured surface.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 23 Jul 2013
- Earliest priority
- 11 Feb 2009
- Est. expiry
- 15 Jul 2031
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2018-00963 · Other · filed by Fujian Sanan Group Co., Ltd.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HSU, CHEN KE · SU, WIN JIM · CHUANG, CHIA-MING · OU, CHEN
- Classification
- H01L33/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.
- Examiner
- LEE, JAE
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Epistar, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Adam Burrowbridge · Albert Shih · Christopher D. Mays · Henry Ting-Hsi Pan · James C. Yoon · Jennifer Liu · Lisa D. Zang · Lucy Yen · Mark D. Fahey · Mary Procaccio-Flowers · Randal C. Miller · Ryan Ronald Smith
- Firm
- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, LLP
Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew V. Jablon · Reid E. Dammann · Robyn C. Crowther
- Firm
- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Resch Polster & Berger LLP, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
- Also named
- L. G. Sourcing Incorporated · Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Adam Burrowbridge | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Albert Shih | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Christopher D. Mays | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Henry Ting-Hsi Pan | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| James C. Yoon | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Jennifer Liu | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Lisa D. Zang | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Lucy Yen | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Mark D. Fahey | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Mary Procaccio-Flowers | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Randal C. Miller | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Ryan Ronald Smith | Epistar, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Andrew V. Jablon | Lowe’s Companies, Inc. | Defendant |
| Reid E. Dammann | Lowe’s Companies, Inc. | Defendant |
| Robyn C. Crowther | Lowe’s Companies, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“For the reasons stated in this Order, Lowe’s Motion for JMOL is DENIED. Epistar’s Motion for an ongoing royalty is GRANTED-IN-PART as to the 64 products presented at trial, and DENIED-IN-PART as to other unknown products; prejudgment interest in the amount of $570,091.66 is GRANTED; and post-judgment is GRANTED with calculation of the amount owed DEFERRED until after all appellate proceedings have concluded.”
Case 2:17-cv-03219 · C.D. Cal. · closed 20 November 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:17-cv-03219?
2:17-cv-03219 is a patent infringement action brought by Epistar, Corp. against Lowe’s Companies, Inc., filed on 28 Apr 2017 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 20 November 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:17-cv-03219?
US7560738B2 (“Light-emitting diode array having an adhesive layer”), assigned to EDISONLED LLC, currently inactive; US8492780B2 (“Light-emitting device and manufacturing method thereof”), assigned to TAU CETI VENTURES LLC, currently active; US6346771B1 (“High power led lamp”), assigned to EPISTAR CORPORATION; US8587020B2 (“LED lamps”), assigned to EPISTAR CORPORATION; US8791467B2 (“Light emitting diode and method of making the same”), assigned to EPISTAR CORPORATION. The record also lists The Kichler Lighting 60 W Equivalent Dimmable Soft White A15 Led Decorative Light Bulb (Manufacturer Part Number: YGA16A08-A15C-CL-5W) and UTILITECH 60 W Equivalent Warm White A19 LED Light Fixture Light Bulb (Manufacturer Part Number: YGA03A41-A19-9W-830).
How was case 2:17-cv-03219 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case accepted in part. The termination text reads: “For the reasons stated in this Order, Lowe’s Motion for JMOL is DENIED. Epistar’s Motion for an ongoing royalty is GRANTED-IN-PART as to the 64 products presented at trial, and DENIED-IN-PART as to other unknown products; prejudgment interest in the amount of $570,091.66 is GRANTED; and post-judgment is GRANTED with calculation of the amount owed DEFERRED until after all appellate proceedings have concluded.”
How long did case 2:17-cv-03219 take?
2397 calendar days, from filing on 28 Apr 2017 to closure on 20 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:17-cv-03219?
Adam Burrowbridge, Albert Shih, Christopher D. Mays, Henry Ting-Hsi Pan, James C. Yoon, Jennifer Liu, Lisa D. Zang, Lucy Yen, Mark D. Fahey, Mary Procaccio-Flowers, Randal C. Miller and Ryan Ronald Smith are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Epistar. Andrew V. Jablon, Reid E. Dammann and Robyn C. Crowther appear for defendant Lowe’s Companies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:17-cv-03219 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.