LED Wafer Solutions, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 22 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 24 Jun 2026, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9786822B2US8952405B2US8941137B2
- Case no.
- 4:22-cv-04809
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Aug 2022 – 24 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 1402 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Light emitting diode package and method of manufacture
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 package and method of manufacture
A light emitting diode (LED) device and packaging for same is disclosed. In some aspects, the LED is manufactured using a vertical configuration including a plurality of layers. Certain layers act to promote mechanical, electrical, thermal, or optical characteristics of the device. The device avoids design problems, including manufacturing complexities, costs and heat dissipation problems found in conventional LED devices. Some embodiments include a plurality of optically permissive layers, including an optically permissive cover substrate or wafer stacked over a semiconductor LED and positioned using one or more alignment markers.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Oct 2017
- Earliest priority
- 6 Mar 2011
- Est. expiry
- 6 Aug 2032
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record90015130 · EPR · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTDIPR2021-01526 · Other · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MARGALIT, MORDEHAI
- Classification
- H01L33/50H01L33/64H01L33/62H01L33/00H01L33/56H01L33/44H01L33/40H01L33/52H01L33/58H01L33/32H01L33/60H10P95/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Intrinsic Law Corp.
- Examiner
- FEENEY, BRETT
Light emitting diode package and method of manufacture
A light emitting diode (LED) device and packaging for same is disclosed. In some aspects, the LED is manufactured using a vertical configuration including a plurality of layers. Certain layers act to promote mechanical, electrical, thermal, or optical characteristics of the device. The device avoids design problems, including manufacturing complexities, costs and heat dissipation problems found in conventional LED devices. Some embodiments include a plurality of optically permissive layers, including an optically permissive cover substrate or wafer stacked over a semiconductor LED and positioned using one or more alignment markers.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Feb 2015
- Earliest priority
- 6 Mar 2011
- Est. expiry
- 6 Mar 2032
- Validity challenges
- 5 on recordIPR2021-01491 · filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd90015156 · EPR · filed by PAUL HASTINGS LLP90015090 · EPR90015155 · EPR · filed by PAUL HASTINGS LLPIPR2021-01479 · Other · filed by Seoul Semiconductor, Co. Ltd.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MARGALIT, MORDEHAI
- Classification
- H01L33/00H01L21/00H01L33/50H01L33/52H01L33/58H01L33/60H10P95/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Intrinsic Law Corp.
- Examiner
- WILCZEWSKI, MARY
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
LED Wafer Solutions, LLC
- Core tech
- H01L33/50H01L33/64H01L33/62H01L33/00
- Counsel
- Anita Liu · Bradley David Liddle · Charles Wizenfeld · Daniel L. Schmid · Edgar Leon Carter · Enoch H Liang · Eric Maurer · Erick Scott Robinson · Howard Lithaw Lim · Jon A. Birmingham · Jordan T. Bergsten · Joshua J. Bennett · Karen J. Wang · Mark S. Raskin · Michael Amberg · Michael C. Pomeroy · Nathan I. Cox · Robert A. Whitman · Ryan D. Dykal · Ryan David Dykal · Scott W. Breedlove · Theresa M. Dawson · Yiren Yu
- Firm
- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, Carter Arnett PLLC, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP, King & Wood LLP, King & Wood Mallesons LLP, Skiermont Derby LLP
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alexander Landyshev · Alexandra E. Kochian · Austin Michael Schnell · Benjamin Norenberg Luehrs · Brian Christopher Nash · Cosmin Maier · David J Cho · Frederick J. Ding · Gillian Moore · John M. Desmarais · Jordan Owens · Michael E. Jones · Patrick W Reilly · Paul A. Bondor · Robert Blake Dunteman · Shaun William Hassett · Taeg Sang Cho · Yung-Hoon Ha
- Firm
- Desmarais LLP, McGuireWoods LLP, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Potter Minton PC
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Samsung’s and Seoul Semiconductor’s respective partial motions to dismiss. The Court DISMISSES LED Wafer’s claims of willful infringement as to the ’137 patent, the ’405 patent, and ’822 patent against Samsung and Seoul Semiconductor, with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Court DISMISSES LED Wafer’s claims of induced infringement and contributory infringement as to the ’137 patent, the ’405 patent, and ’822 patent against Samsung and Seoul Semiconductor, with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Court GRANTS LED Wafer’s voluntary motion to dismiss. Given the lack of legal prejudice to Defendants, the Court DISMISSES LED Wafer’s remaining claims on the ’405 patent and ’822 patent without prejudice in accordance with LED Wafer’s voluntary dismissal. Also in accordance with LED Wafer’s voluntary dismissal, all claims on the ’137 patent are dismissed with prejudice to re-filing against Samsung on currently released products. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Samsung’s counterclaims for declaratory relief arising from the same patents and DISMISSES the counterclaims as well.”
Case 4:22-cv-04809 · N.D. Cal. · closed 24 June 2026
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 4:22-cv-04809?
4:22-cv-04809 is a patent infringement action brought by LED Wafer Solutions, LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 22 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 24 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 4:22-cv-04809?
US9786822B2 (“Light emitting diode package and method of manufacture”), assigned to LED WAFER SOLUTIONS LLC, currently active; US8952405B2 (“Light emitting diode package and method of manufacture”), assigned to LED WAFER SOLUTIONS LLC, currently active; US8941137B2 (“Light emitting diode package and method of manufacture”), assigned to LED WAFER SOLUTIONS LLC. The record also lists Light emitting diode package and method of manufacture.
How was case 4:22-cv-04809 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Samsung’s and Seoul Semiconductor’s respective partial motions to dismiss. The Court DISMISSES LED Wafer’s claims of willful infringement as to the ’137 patent, the ’405 patent, and ’822 patent against Samsung and Seoul Semiconductor, with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Court DISMISSES LED Wafer’s claims of induced infringement and contributory infringement as to the ’137 patent, the ’405 patent, and ’822 patent against Samsung and Seoul Semiconductor, with prejudice and without leave to amend. The Court GRANTS LED Wafer’s voluntary motio
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 4:22-cv-04809 take?
1402 calendar days, from filing on 22 Aug 2022 to closure on 24 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:22-cv-04809?
Anita Liu, Bradley David Liddle, Charles Wizenfeld, Daniel L. Schmid, Edgar Leon Carter, Enoch H Liang, Eric Maurer, Erick Scott Robinson, Howard Lithaw Lim, Jon A. Birmingham, Jordan T. Bergsten, Joshua J. Bennett, Karen J. Wang, Mark S. Raskin, Michael Amberg, Michael C. Pomeroy, Nathan I. Cox, Robert A. Whitman, Ryan D. Dykal, Ryan David Dykal, Scott W. Breedlove, Theresa M. Dawson and Yiren Yu are recorded as counsel for plaintiff LED Wafer Solutions. Alexander Landyshev, Alexandra E. Kochian, Austin Michael Schnell, Benjamin Norenberg Luehrs, Brian Christopher Nash, Cosmin Maier, David J Cho, Frederick J. Ding, Gillian Moore, John M. Desmarais, Jordan Owens, Michael E. Jones, Patrick W Reilly, Paul A. Bondor, Robert Blake Dunteman, Shaun William Hassett, Taeg Sang Cho and Yung-Hoon Ha appear for defendant Samsung Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:22-cv-04809 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.