Led Apogee v. Onsemi: LED Driver Patent Suit Dismissed in 16 Days
Led Apogee, LLC brought an infringement action against semiconductor manufacturer Onsemi in the Western District of Texas, asserting US6982527B2 covering a method for driving light emitting diodes. The case ended in voluntary dismissal without prejudice just 16 days after filing — before Onsemi had served any responsive pleading.
A 16-Day LED Patent Action That Left the Door Open
On December 3, 2024, Led Apogee, LLC filed an infringement action against Onsemi in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00311), presided over by Judge David Counts. The asserted patent, US6982527B2, covers a method for driving light emitting diodes — a foundational technology domain in which Onsemi, a global semiconductor supplier, operates at scale. Plaintiff was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm with a documented history of patent enforcement actions.
On December 18, 2024 — just 15 days after filing — Led Apogee filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Onsemi had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-effectuating and required no court order. The court acknowledged the notice on December 19, 2024, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees. All pending motions were denied as moot.
The speed of dismissal — before any substantive engagement by the defendant — is consistent with pre-litigation dynamics such as licensing negotiations, strategic reassessment of claim scope, or plaintiff’s decision not to proceed once the defendant’s posture became clearer. The public record does not disclose the underlying commercial reason. Critically, dismissal without prejudice preserves Led Apogee’s right to refile against Onsemi or other parties in the LED driver space, meaning this case may represent an early move in a broader enforcement campaign rather than a final resolution.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 16 days
16 days — resolved before defendant could file an answer or summary judgment motion
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal before answer
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Onsemi had not yet responded, Led Apogee’s notice was immediately operative — no judicial approval was needed. The Fifth Circuit has confirmed such notices are ‘self-effectuating and terminate the case in and of itself.’
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: refiling remains an open option
A dismissal without prejudice means the claim is not decided on its merits and the plaintiff retains the right to refile. This is legally distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar future claims on the same grounds. The court’s order and the public record confirm this was a without-prejudice dismissal, so Led Apogee is not precluded from reasserting US6982527B2 against Onsemi or pursuing other defendants in the LED driver space.
Refiling permittedOnsemi exits without merits ruling — but exposure persists
Onsemi avoids any adverse judgment and bears no court-imposed costs. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, no finding of non-infringement was made. The patent remains in force, and Onsemi faces the possibility of future litigation over the same patent. Prudent IP teams at Onsemi may wish to assess freedom-to-operate against US6982527B2 regardless of this case’s closure.
No merits finding; risk remainsLED driver IP landscape: dismissal signals ongoing enforcement risk
A rapid voluntary dismissal in patent assertion cases often signals licensing discussions, claim scope reassessment, or a pivot to a different litigation target. Companies operating in the LED driver IC market — including competitors to Onsemi — should monitor Led Apogee’s filing activity. The asserted patent, US6982527B2, remains a live enforcement instrument until its expiry or invalidation.
Enforcement campaign possibleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Led Apogee, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US6982527B2 covering LED driving methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Onsemi | Individual | Onsemi — global semiconductor manufacturer active in power and LED driver ICsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Led Apogee, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Led Apogee, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Counts | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was procedurally clean: because Onsemi had not served an answer or summary judgment motion, no judicial discretion was exercised and no merits determination was made. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ provision is standard in self-effectuating Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals and does not reflect any finding on the strength of the patent claims. US6982527B2 remains valid and enforceable.
US6982527B2 — Method for Driving Light Emitting Diodes
US6982527B2 (application number US10/844956) covers a method for driving light emitting diodes. LED driving methods sit at the intersection of power electronics and solid-state lighting, governing how current is regulated and modulated to achieve brightness, efficiency, and longevity in LED-based systems. Patents in this space can have broad applicability across consumer, industrial, automotive, and general lighting product categories — all sectors in which Onsemi is commercially active.
For semiconductor manufacturers like Onsemi, method patents covering LED driving techniques carry meaningful enforcement risk because the claimed method may be practised inside a product IC regardless of how the end product is labelled. If the patent’s claims are interpreted broadly, they could potentially read on a wide range of LED driver ICs sold to OEMs and lighting manufacturers. The patent’s continued enforceability — reinforced by the without-prejudice dismissal — makes it a live consideration for any company in the LED driver supply chain conducting FTO assessments.
Should your team run an FTO against US6982527B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating LED driver ICs should consider whether US6982527B2 poses freedom-to-operate risk. The patent’s method claims may be broad enough to capture common driving techniques. Given Led Apogee’s willingness to litigate — and the without-prejudice nature of this dismissal — R&D and product teams at LED component suppliers, lighting OEMs, and automotive lighting manufacturers should treat this patent as an active risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US6982527B2 against your product’s technical specifications, identify potentially overlapping prior art, and flag design-around opportunities. The agent surfaces related litigation history and patent family data, giving IP and engineering teams a structured starting point for counsel-directed FTO analysis without manual prior art trawling.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6982527B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED Driver & Semiconductor Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Browse patent infringement actions involving LED driver and semiconductor method patents filed in the Western District of Texas, including rapid dismissals and assertion patterns.
What this case signals for the LED driver semiconductor IP landscape
A 16-day lifecycle and a without-prejudice exit suggest this case is a data point, not an endpoint, in Led Apogee’s enforcement strategy.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve all enforcement optionality
Led Apogee’s use of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Onsemi filed any responsive pleading is a textbook early-exit mechanism. It leaves US6982527B2 fully intact and enforceable. Companies in the LED driver supply chain should not treat this closure as a signal that the patent is inactive — the opposite may be true.
Rabicoff Law’s filing pattern warrants monitoring by semiconductor IP teams
Rabicoff Law LLC is a recurring plaintiff-side firm in patent assertion matters. Its involvement suggests a structured enforcement programme. IP counsel at LED driver IC manufacturers and their customers should track future filings by Led Apogee and related entities to anticipate the next assertion target.
Led v Onsemi — key questions answered
Led Apogee, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Onsemi in the Western District of Texas on December 3, 2024, asserting US6982527B2. On December 18, 2024, Led Apogee voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Onsemi filed any answer. The case closed December 19, 2024, with each party bearing its own costs.
A dismissal without prejudice means no merits determination was made and Led Apogee retains the right to refile the same claims. Onsemi faces no adverse judgment and no cost award against it, but the infringement question was never resolved. The patent US6982527B2 remains enforceable, so Onsemi’s exposure to future litigation on the same patent persists.
US6982527B2 covers a method for driving light emitting diodes — technology directly relevant to Onsemi’s LED driver IC product lines. Method claims of this type can be asserted against semiconductor manufacturers whose chips implement the claimed driving technique, making it a potentially significant patent for companies throughout the LED driver supply chain.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Rapid voluntary dismissals before any defendant response are consistent with several scenarios: licensing negotiations reaching an early resolution, plaintiff reassessing claim scope, a decision to pursue a different defendant, or a strategic pause. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means the option to refile remains open.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice and no invalidity or non-infringement finding was made, US6982527B2 remains in force and fully enforceable. LED driver IC manufacturers, lighting OEMs, and others in the supply chain should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent, particularly given Led Apogee’s demonstrated willingness to assert it in litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.