Lexington Luminance v. Green Creative: LED Patent Suit Settled in 160 Days
Lexington Luminance, LLC asserted US6936851B2 — covering semiconductor light-emitting devices — against LED product maker Green Creative, LLC in the Middle District of Florida. The parties jointly notified the court of a complete settlement, resolving the infringement action in under six months.
A swift LED patent dispute resolved before trial in Orlando
On September 7, 2022, Lexington Luminance, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Green Creative, LLC in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 6:22-cv-01608). The suit asserted US6936851B2, a patent directed to a semiconductor light-emitting device and its manufacturing method — core technology underpinning modern LED products. Green Creative is a defendant in the lighting and LED products space.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Settled.' The docket order, entered February 14, 2023, states that the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement advising the court the action had been completely settled, and pursuant to Local Rule 3.09(b) the court dismissed the case with prejudice, retaining jurisdiction for 60 days to enter a stipulated final order or judgment if the parties so moved. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
Resolution in 160 days — before any reported claim construction or summary judgment briefing — suggests both parties had incentives to reach an early commercial resolution. What drove the settlement, and whether it includes any licensing or business arrangement, is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Settled in 160 days
160 days — below the median duration for patent cases in M.D. Fla.
US6936851B2 — Semiconductor light-emitting device and manufacturing method
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing LED products that incorporate semiconductor light-emitting device structures should assess freedom-to-operate against US6936851B2. Because this case settled without claim construction or validity adjudication, no judicial guidance on claim scope is available from this proceeding. The patent's claims stand as issued, and Lexington Luminance has demonstrated a willingness to enforce them in federal court.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order records a Joint Notice of Settlement from the parties stating the action was 'completely settled,' and dismisses pursuant to Local Rule 3.09(b) with prejudice. No merits ruling on infringement or validity of US6936851B2 was issued. The 60-day retention of jurisdiction to enter a stipulated final order is a standard procedural mechanism in the Middle District of Florida and does not indicate any disclosed agreement terms.
Case settled: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Settlement triggers dismissal with prejudice under Local Rule 3.09(b)
After the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement, the court invoked Local Rule 3.09(b) of the Middle District of Florida to dismiss the action with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction for 60 days to enter a stipulated final order or judgment if requested. No merits determination was made by the court. The specific terms of the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissal with prejudiceLexington Luminance exits with a confidential resolution
As plaintiff and patent holder, Lexington Luminance secured a resolution without proceeding to claim construction or trial. The dismissal with prejudice bars Lexington Luminance from re-filing the same infringement claims against Green Creative in respect of the conduct at issue. What, if anything, was exchanged as part of the settlement is not disclosed in the available public record.
No re-filing on same claimsGreen Creative avoids a merits adjudication on US6936851B2
Green Creative resolved the dispute without a court ruling on infringement or validity. A dismissal with prejudice means the specific claims arising from this action cannot be relitigated, but the patent US6936851B2 remains enforceable against other parties. The terms Green Creative agreed to — if any — are not publicly available.
No infringement findingUS6936851B2 remains live — other LED makers face the same exposure
Because the case settled without a validity or infringement ruling, US6936851B2 retains full enforceability. Lexington Luminance's litigation posture suggests active monetisation of this semiconductor LED patent. Other manufacturers and distributors of LED products using similar semiconductor light-emitting device structures should assess their freedom-to-operate position against this patent.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lexington Luminance, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US6936851B2 for semiconductor LED devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Green Creative, LLC | Company | Green Creative, LLC — LED lighting product manufacturer and distributor.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Ippoliti | Attorney | Counsel for Lexington Luminance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jessica Honeycutt | Attorney | Counsel for Lexington Luminance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark F. Warzecha | Attorney | Counsel for Lexington Luminance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Katz | Attorney | Counsel for Lexington Luminance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Celebration Law PA | Law Firm | Representing Lexington Luminance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Katz PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Lexington Luminance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Widerman Malek PL | Law Firm | Representing Lexington Luminance, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karen C. Kline | Attorney | Counsel for Green Creative, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Seth S. Coburn | Attorney | Counsel for Green Creative, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy R. Shannon | Attorney | Counsel for Green Creative, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Green Creative, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the semiconductor LED and solid-state lighting space
Forward-looking patent and technology intelligence for LED manufacturers and R&D teams, drawn from the IP activity surrounding Lexington Luminance, Green Creative, and US6936851B2.
Lexington Luminance's semiconductor LED patent holdings
Lexington Luminance has built an assertion-focused portfolio around semiconductor light-emitting device technology. Understanding the full scope of their holdings — including continuations, divisionals, and related family members beyond US6936851B2 — is critical for any LED product company assessing long-term litigation exposure in this technology domain.
Patent assertion entityFiling trends in semiconductor LED device architecture
Patent filing activity around semiconductor light-emitting device structures — epitaxial layers, substrate engineering, and chip packaging — continues to grow as efficiency and miniaturisation demands intensify. Tracking filing trends in this space helps R&D teams identify white space and anticipate where new IP thickets are forming around next-generation LED architectures.
LED filing trendsGreen Creative's patent activity in LED lighting products
Green Creative operates in the commercial LED product market. Analysing Green Creative's own patent filings — if any — and its IP defensive posture in the solid-state lighting space provides intelligence on how product-side companies in this sector are building IP protection around luminaire design, driver electronics, and LED module integration.
Competitor IP analysisAdjacent innovation opportunities near US6936851B2 claims
The asserted patent covers a specific semiconductor LED device structure and manufacturing method. R&D teams can use claim mapping to identify adjacent technical approaches — alternative substrate materials, novel epitaxial processes, or packaging innovations — that achieve comparable performance outcomes while falling outside the patent's claim boundaries, opening design-around and white-space filing opportunities.
Design-around opportunitySimilar LED and semiconductor lighting patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving semiconductor light-emitting device patents filed in U.S. district courts, including M.D. Florida, by patent assertion entities in the LED sector.
What this case signals for the LED and semiconductor lighting IP landscape
A sub-160-day settlement in a LED patent suit signals active monetisation pressure on the semiconductor lighting supply chain.
Lexington Luminance targets commercial LED product companies
This action is consistent with a patent assertion strategy focused on LED product makers. US6936851B2 covers fundamental semiconductor light-emitting device structures and manufacturing, making it broadly relevant to the LED supply chain. Companies selling or distributing commercial LED luminaires should audit their product lines against this patent's claims.
Early settlement before claim construction limits public record
Resolution before any Markman hearing means no claim construction rulings are available to inform scope analysis. Competitors and potential defendants cannot rely on judicial narrowing of US6936851B2's claims from this case. Independent FTO analysis against the as-issued claims is essential for any company in the semiconductor LED space.
Lexington v Green — key questions answered
Lexington Luminance asserted US6936851B2 (application number US10/394686), a patent directed to a semiconductor light-emitting device and method for manufacturing the same. The case was filed in the Middle District of Florida on September 7, 2022.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Settled.' The court order dated February 14, 2023 states that the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement advising the court the action was completely settled. The court dismissed the case with prejudice under Local Rule 3.09(b), retaining jurisdiction for 60 days. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
No court ruling on validity or infringement was issued. Because the case settled before any merits adjudication, US6936851B2 remains fully enforceable against other parties. The dismissal with prejudice only bars Lexington Luminance from re-asserting the same claims against Green Creative arising from the conduct at issue in this case.
The case lasted 160 days, from filing on September 7, 2022 to dismissal on February 14, 2023. This is a notably short duration for a patent infringement case in the Middle District of Florida, suggesting the parties reached an agreement before significant pretrial litigation activity such as claim construction briefing.
Yes. Because the case settled without a validity or claim construction ruling, US6936851B2 retains its full issued scope. Lexington Luminance's enforcement activity indicates an active assertion posture. LED product manufacturers, importers, and distributors whose products incorporate semiconductor light-emitting device structures covered by the patent's claims should consider conducting a freedom-to-operate analysis.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.