Book a demo
Led Apogee LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc. — LED Driver Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:24-cv-00019
FiledJan 2024
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

Led Apogee LLC v. Analog Devices — LED Driver Patent Case Dismissed in 17 Days

Led Apogee LLC brought a patent infringement action against semiconductor giant Analog Devices, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US6982527B2 — a patented method for driving light emitting diodes. The case closed voluntarily without prejudice just 17 days after filing, before Analog Devices entered any appearance.

Resolution time
17days
17 days — among the shortest lifespans on record for E.D. Tex. patent cases
Patents asserted
1
US6982527B2 — method for driving light emitting diodes (LED driver technology)
Outcome
Voluntary dismissal
Without prejudice — Led Apogee may refile the same claims against Analog Devices
Cost ruling
Own costs
Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees per the dismissal order
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

A 17-day LED patent action in E.D. Tex. closed before it began

On 12 January 2024, Led Apogee LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Analog Devices, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00019), presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent, US6982527B2, covers a method for driving light emitting diodes — a foundational area of solid-state lighting control technology directly relevant to Analog Devices’ semiconductor and power management product lines.

On 29 January 2024 — just 17 days after filing — Led Apogee filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, closed the case, and ordered each party to bear its own costs. No defendant answer or appearance appears on the public docket, meaning the dismissal was filed unilaterally as of right under the Federal Rules.

The extreme brevity of this action is commercially notable. Dismissal within 17 days, before any defendant response, is consistent with a pre-suit licensing discussion that reached a rapid conclusion — or alternatively, a strategic recalibration by the plaintiff. The public record is silent on any settlement terms. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Led Apogee retains the right to refile against Analog Devices on the same patent claims.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:24-cv-00019
CourtTexas Eastern
JudgeRodney Gilstrap
FiledJanuary 12, 2024
ClosedJanuary 29, 2024
Duration17 days
OutcomeVoluntary dismissal
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisVoluntary dismissal
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to resolution in 17 days

17 days — among the shortest lifespans on record for E.D. Tex. patent cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, JAN–FEB — 17 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Led Apogee, LLC v Analog Devices, Inc. from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. JAN 12 2024 Complaint filed JAN–FEB 2024 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 29 2024 Dismissed voluntary 17 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — what the order means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right before any response

Because Analog Devices had not yet filed an answer or motion for summary judgment, Led Apogee was entitled to dismiss unilaterally under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no court approval required. The court’s order simply accepted and acknowledged the dismissal. This procedural posture means the defendant had no opportunity to resist or attach conditions to the exit.

Plaintiff-controlled exit
Prejudice question

Without prejudice: refiling remains an open option for Led Apogee

A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means Led Apogee’s claims are not extinguished on the merits — the company retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Analog Devices in the future. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement was reached; the dismissal notice itself is silent on commercial terms. Practitioners should not infer a settlement solely from the fact of dismissal.

Claims preserved
Cost allocation

Each party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting triggered

The dismissal order specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is the standard outcome under Rule 41 voluntary dismissals where no exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 has been made. Analog Devices incurred whatever internal response costs arose in the 17-day window but is not entitled to recover them under this order.

No fee award
Venue context

E.D. Tex. filing under Judge Gilstrap — a deliberate venue choice

The Eastern District of Texas, and Judge Gilstrap’s docket in particular, remains one of the most plaintiff-favoured patent venues in the United States. Filing here signals a plaintiff experienced in patent enforcement. The fact that the case closed before any substantive proceedings does not diminish the venue’s significance as a strategic signal about Led Apogee’s litigation posture and potential future enforcement activity.

Plaintiff-friendly venue
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:24-cv-00019 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffLed Apogee, LLCCompanyLED patent licensing entity — holder of US6982527B2 (LED driving method)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantAnalog Devices, Inc.CompanyAnalog Devices, Inc. — global semiconductor company specialising in signal processing and power management ICsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselIsaac Phillip RabicoffAttorneyCounsel for Led Apogee, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Rodney GilstrapChief JudgeTexas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff LED Apogee LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6). In the Notice, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendant Analog Devices, Inc. (“Defendant”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:24-cv-00019, Texas Eastern District Court · Filed January 29, 2024

The court’s order is purely administrative — it accepts the plaintiff’s unilateral notice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and formally closes the case. No merits finding was made; no claim was adjudicated. The ‘dismissed without prejudice’ language is critical: it preserves Led Apogee’s right to refile identical claims. The cost-bearing provision reflects the default rule, not a judicial assessment of either party’s conduct or the strength of the underlying patent.

PACER case 2:24-cv-00019 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US6982527B2 — Method for Driving Light Emitting Diodes

Publication No.US6982527B2
Application No.US10/844956
Patent details
AssigneeLed Apogee, LLC
ProductUS6982527B2 — LED driving method patent (application no. US10/844956)
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJanuary 12, 2024

US6982527B2 (application number US10/844956) protects a method for driving light emitting diodes — a technical domain that encompasses current control, pulse-width modulation, and thermal management techniques used to power and regulate LEDs in consumer electronics, automotive lighting, industrial systems, and display backlighting. The patent issued as a B2 grant, indicating it underwent post-issuance correction or reexamination, which may affect the enforceability scope of specific claims.

For semiconductor companies, LED driver method patents carry broad potential exposure because the protected techniques may read on standard circuit architectures embedded in widely distributed ICs. Analog Devices’ power management and mixed-signal product lines make it a plausible infringement target. The assertion of this patent in E.D. Tex. — without any disclosed claim chart or product-specific allegations in the public docket — suggests the plaintiff may be relying on broad method claims applicable across multiple product families, a pattern typical of NPE enforcement campaigns.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your team run an FTO analysis against US6982527B2?

Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating LED driver circuits — including IC makers, lighting system OEMs, automotive electronics suppliers, and display panel manufacturers — should assess exposure to US6982527B2. The method claims in this patent potentially reach products beyond dedicated LED driver ICs, extending to microcontrollers, power management units, and SoCs that include LED control functionality as a feature.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US6982527B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag continuation or divisional patents in the same family that could generate follow-on risk. Setting a claim-change monitor on this patent family is advisable given the active enforcement posture suggested by this filing.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6982527B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar LED driver and semiconductor patent infringement cases in E.D. Tex.

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Led Apogee, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern case history, Led Apogee, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
LED driver NPE filingsE.D. Tex. quick dismissalsAnalog Devices prior suitsSolid-state lighting IP cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the LED driver and semiconductor IP landscape

A 17-day lifespan in E.D. Tex. rarely means the dispute is over — it often means it moved off-docket.

LED driver IP is under active assertion pressure from licensing entities

US6982527B2 targets a core function — driving LEDs — that sits inside countless semiconductor products. Any company making or selling LED driver ICs, power management chips with LED control functions, or integrated lighting controllers should treat this filing as an early signal of active enforcement activity in this space.

A without-prejudice dismissal is not clearance — monitor for refiling

Analog Devices and similarly positioned semiconductor firms should place US6982527B2 on a watch list. Without-prejudice dismissals in licensing-driven campaigns are frequently followed by refiling — either against the same defendant after negotiations stall, or against new targets across the same product category.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Led Apogee filing historyUS6982527B2 claim scopeSemiconductor LED enforcement map
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Led v Analog — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run your own LED driver patent risk analysis in Eureka

Use PatSnap Eureka to perform an FTO search against US6982527B2, monitor the Led Apogee patent family for new assertions, and track enforcement patterns across the LED driver semiconductor sector.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.