Lyne Laboratories, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Patentability filed 7 Jul 2023 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 11 Sep 2023, with US10652979B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10652979B2
- Application no.
- US16/693155
- Case no.
- 23-2128
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 7 Jul 2023 – 11 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 66 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- LED lighting system
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
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
LED lighting system
An LED lighting system having at least one LED circuit and at least two circuits or drivers capable of receiving an AC voltage at a first frequency and having an output capable of driving the at least one LED circuit, wherein the output of each circuit or driver capable of driving the at least one LED circuit is provided to the at least one LED circuit through a circuit or sensor capable of permitting only a single output from the at least two circuits or drivers be provided to the at least one LED circuit.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 12 May 2020
- Earliest priority
- 12 May 2011
- Est. expiry
- 25 Feb 2025
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2021-01576 · Other · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MISKIN, MICHAEL · KOTTRITSCH, ROBERT L.
- Classification
- H05B33/00H05B45/00H05B45/10H05B45/37H05B33/08H05B45/50H05B45/40H05B44/00
- Prosecution counsel
- K&L Gates LLP
- Examiner
- KING, MONICA C
Parties of record
Lyne Laboratories, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Stephen Terry Schreiner
- Firm
- Carmichael IP PLLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Joseph Palys
- Firm
- Paul Hastings, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Stephen Terry Schreiner | Lyne Laboratories, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Joseph Palys | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.”
Case 23-2128 · Fed. Cir. · closed 11 September 2023
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 23-2128?
23-2128 is a patent patentability brought by Lyne Laboratories, Inc. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 7 Jul 2023 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 11 September 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 23-2128?
US10652979B2 (“LED lighting system”), assigned to LYNK LABS, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists LED lighting system.
How was case 23-2128 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.”
What does voluntary dismissal mean?
A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.
How long did case 23-2128 take?
66 calendar days, from filing on 7 Jul 2023 to closure on 11 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 23-2128?
Stephen Terry Schreiner is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lyne Laboratories. Joseph Palys appears for defendant Samsung Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 23-2128 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.