Luminatronics v. Texas Instruments: LED Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Luminatronics LLC brought a patent infringement action against Texas Instruments in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering LED light structures. After 462 days of litigation before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, both parties agreed to dismiss all claims without prejudice — leaving the door open for future proceedings.
LED Patent Clash in E.D. Texas Ends in Mutual No-Prejudice Exit
On March 1, 2023, Luminatronics LLC filed suit against Texas Instruments Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00085), asserting infringement of two LED light structure patents: US10028349B2 and US9807836B2. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most patent-experienced federal judges in the country. The patents-in-suit relate to LED light structures — a commercially significant area given Texas Instruments’ broad semiconductor and lighting component portfolio.
The action concluded on June 5, 2024, when both parties jointly filed a Notice of Dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss without a court order when the defendant joins. The court accepted the notice and dismissed all claims and causes of action asserted by both parties without prejudice. Notably, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a standard arrangement in mutual voluntary dismissals that avoids further dispute over litigation spend.
The 462-day duration before dismissal suggests the parties engaged in meaningful pre-trial activity — potentially including claim construction briefing, discovery exchanges, or settlement negotiations — before agreeing to exit. The without-prejudice designation means Luminatronics retains the right to refile on the same patents, and the underlying infringement dispute is not foreclosed on the merits. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached, though a mutual dismissal at this stage is commonly consistent with an undisclosed resolution.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 462 days
462 days — longer than the median E.D. Tex. voluntary dismissal, suggesting substantive pre-trial activity
Dismissed without prejudice: what the mutual exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): voluntary dismissal without a court order
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment — or, as here, when the opposing party joins the notice. The dismissal takes effect upon filing. The court’s role is purely to accept and acknowledge the notice, not to adjudicate the merits. No findings of fact or conclusions of law are made, and no judgment is entered on any claim.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: refiling remains an option for Luminatronics
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from reasserting the same claims in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any applicable estoppel doctrines. The public record here expressly states ‘without prejudice’ for both sides. This is distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would function as a final judgment on the merits. Texas Instruments gains no res judicata protection from this outcome, and the patents-in-suit remain enforceable.
Refiling not foreclosedEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting awarded
The court’s order specifies that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In patent litigation, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case,’ which cannot occur without a merits ruling. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is standard in voluntary dismissals and removes a potential source of post-dismissal dispute. It also suggests neither party sought to characterise the other’s litigation conduct as exceptional.
No § 285 fee awardMutual dismissal after 462 days is consistent with undisclosed resolution
When both parties jointly dismiss after more than a year of active litigation, it typically signals that a confidential agreement — whether a licence, covenant not to sue, or financial settlement — has been reached. The public record is silent on any settlement terms. Patent practitioners should note that US10028349B2 and US9807836B2 remain in force and could be asserted in future actions against other LED component manufacturers operating in overlapping technology space.
Possible confidential resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Luminatronics, LLC | Company | LED lighting IP licensor — holder of US10028349B2 and US9807836B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Texas Instruments, Corp. | Company | Texas Instruments Corp. — global semiconductor and electronics components manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cortney Alexander | Attorney | Counsel for Luminatronics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kent & Risley LLC (Alpharett) | Law Firm | Representing Luminatronics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amanda Aline Abraham | Attorney | Counsel for Texas Instruments, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Roth Law Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Texas Instruments, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order does not adjudicate the merits of the infringement claims. The language — ‘ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’ — reflects the ministerial nature of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice: no judicial determination is made on validity, infringement, or damages. The mutual without-prejudice dismissal means neither party can invoke res judicata or claim preclusion based on this proceeding. The denial of all pending relief ‘as moot’ confirms no substantive rulings were entered. Both patents remain presumptively valid and enforceable.
US10028349B2 & US9807836B2 — LED Light Structure Patents
US10028349B2 (App. No. 15/795,965) and US9807836B2 (App. No. 15/264,475) both relate to LED light structures — a category encompassing the electrical, optical, and mechanical architectures that enable solid-state lighting systems to function. These patents cover configurations relevant to how LEDs are powered, controlled, and integrated into broader lighting assemblies. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation or related-application family, meaning the two patents likely share common specification content and priority history, which has implications for claim scope interpretation and potential double-patenting analysis.
For the semiconductor and LED driver market, patents in this space carry significant commercial weight. Texas Instruments is a major supplier of LED driver ICs and related power management components — making it a natural litigation target for LED structure patents. The assertion of two related patents simultaneously is a common enforcement strategy designed to broaden claim coverage and complicate a single-patent invalidity defence. Companies developing next-generation LED systems, smart lighting controllers, or solid-state lighting modules should treat this patent family as a material IP risk, particularly given Luminatronics’ demonstrated willingness to litigate in E.D. Texas.
Should your team run an FTO against US10028349B2 and US9807836B2?
Any organisation designing, manufacturing, or commercialising LED light structures — including LED driver IC developers, luminaire OEMs, smart lighting system integrators, and solid-state lighting component suppliers — should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against these two patents. The without-prejudice dismissal means Luminatronics could refile against Texas Instruments or assert against other industry participants at any time. The related-application structure of the family suggests claim scope may extend across multiple product configurations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map your product’s technical features against the independent and dependent claims of US10028349B2 and US9807836B2, surface prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and identify related family members or continuation applications that could expand the assertion risk. For IP teams supporting LED product development, running a proactive Eureka FTO analysis now — before a demand letter arrives — is substantially less costly than reactive litigation defence in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10028349B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED & Semiconductor Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related LED lighting and semiconductor patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap and comparable forums.
What this case signals for the LED lighting and semiconductor IP landscape
A voluntary exit after 462 days in E.D. Texas raises important questions for LED component makers and their IP teams.
Both LED patents remain enforceable — monitor for new assertions
US10028349B2 and US9807836B2 were never adjudicated on the merits. Luminatronics retains full enforcement rights. Companies manufacturing or incorporating LED light structures should treat these patents as active litigation risk and conduct updated FTO analysis, particularly if their products fall within the claim scope of either patent.
E.D. Texas and Judge Gilstrap remain a high-risk venue for LED IP disputes
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract LED and semiconductor patent assertions. Judge Gilstrap’s docket is among the most active in the country for patent cases. Even when cases settle pre-trial, the venue’s pro-plaintiff reputation and procedural pace can drive significant settlement pressure on defendants within months of filing.
Luminatronics v Texas — key questions answered
The dismissal without prejudice means no merits ruling was entered on US10028349B2 or US9807836B2. Luminatronics retains the right to refile infringement claims against Texas Instruments or assert the patents against other defendants. The patents are not invalidated, and no estoppel bars future enforcement within applicable statute of limitations periods.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order, without prejudice, before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment — or when the opposing party consents. Here, both Luminatronics and Texas Instruments joined the notice. The rule requires no judicial approval on the merits; the court simply accepts and acknowledges the notice.
No. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding of an exceptional case, which in turn requires a merits adjudication. Because the case was voluntarily dismissed without a merits ruling, no § 285 analysis was conducted and no fees were awarded to either side.
Both patents relate to LED light structures — covering electrical circuit configurations, control architectures, and interconnection designs used in solid-state lighting systems. Texas Instruments is a major manufacturer of LED driver ICs and power management semiconductors, making it a commercially logical defendant for patents in this space. The sequential application numbers suggest the patents form a related family, potentially with shared priority.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. However, a mutual voluntary dismissal after more than 15 months of litigation — during which claim construction briefing and discovery may have occurred — is commonly consistent with an undisclosed licence or financial resolution. Neither party is obligated to disclose settlement terms, and the mutual without-prejudice structure is a standard mechanism for implementing a confidential resolution.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.