Infringement action filed 7 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and closed 14 Feb 2023, with US6936851B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.
Semiconductor light emitting device and methods for its manufacture comprises a plurality of textured district defined on the surface of the substrate. The initial inclined layer deposition serves to guide the extended defects to designated gettering centers in the trench region where the defects combine with each other. As a result, the defect density in the upper section of the structure is much reduced. By incorporating a blocking mask in the structure, the free propagation of extended defects into the active layer is further restricted. The present invention is useful in the fabrication of semiconductor light emitting devices in misfit systems.
5 on recordIPR2017-00539 · filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.IPR2017-00052 · filed by LG Innotek Co., Ltd.IPR2017-00540 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.IPR2017-01780 · filed by TCL Corporation90012964 · EPR · filed by FORMOSA EPITAXY INCORPORATION
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"The Court has been advised by the parties’ Joint Notice of Settlement that the above-styled action has been completely settled. (Doc. 36 at 1). Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 3.09(b) of the Middle District of Florida, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this cause is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice subject to the right of any party, within sixty days from the date of this Order, to move the Court to enter a stipulated form of final order or judgment, or, on good cause shown, to reopen the case for further proceedings. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to close this file. DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida on February 14, 2023."
Case 6:22-cv-01608 · M.D. Fla. · closed 14 February 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
6:22-cv-01608 is a patent infringement action brought by Lexington Luminance, LLC against Green Creative, LLC, filed on 7 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The case closed on 14 February 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-01608?
US6936851B2 (“Semiconductor light-emitting device and method for manufacturing the same”), assigned to LEXINGTON LUMINANCE LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Semiconductor light-emitting device and method for manufacturing the same.
How was case 6:22-cv-01608 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: "The Court has been advised by the parties’ Joint Notice of Settlement that the above-styled action has been completely settled. (Doc. 36 at 1). Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 3.09(b) of the Middle District of Florida, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this cause is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice subject to the right of any party, within sixty days from the date of this Order, to move the Court to enter a stipulated form of final order or judgment, or, on good cause shown, to reopen the case for further proceedings. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to clos
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 6:22-cv-01608 take?
160 calendar days, from filing on 7 Sep 2022 to closure on 14 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-01608?
James Ippoliti, Jessica Honeycutt, Mark F. Warzecha and Robert Katz are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lexington Luminance. Karen C. Kline, Seth S. Coburn and Timothy R. Shannon appear for defendant Green Creative.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:22-cv-01608 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-01608 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.
