Optolum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.
Infringement action filed 4 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 12 Jun 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7389905B2US6831303B2US6354479B1US7242028B2US6935548B2
- Case no.
- 22-1511
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 4 Mar 2022 – 12 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 465 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Light emitting diode light source
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
Flip chip bonding tool tip
A flip chip bonding tool tip comprising a dissipative material with a resistance low enough to prevent a discharge of a charge to a device being bonded and high enough to avoid current flow large enough to damage the device being bonded is disclosed. Methods for manufacturing a dissipative material for use in a flip chip bonding tool tip are further disclosed.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 24 Jun 2008
- Earliest priority
- 15 Sep 2003
- Est. expiry
- 25 Feb 2020
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2018-00524 · filed by Xilinx, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- REIBER, STEVEN F.
- Classification
- B23K31/02B22F1/00B23K37/00B23K20/00B23K20/02
- Prosecution counsel
- CARR & FERRELL LLP
- Examiner
- STONER, KILEY
Light emitting diode light source
A light source that utilizes light emitting diodes that emit white light is disclosed. The diodes are mounted on an elongate member having at least two surfaces upon which the light emitting diodes are mounted. The elongate member is thermally conductive and is utilized to cool the light emitting diodes. In the illustrative embodiment, the elongate member is a tubular member through which a heat transfer medium flows.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 14 Dec 2004
- Est. expiry
- 29 May 2022
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2017-01260 · Other · filed by Cree, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DRY, JOEL M.
- Classification
- F21V29/02F21V29/00F21S4/00F21V19/00F21K99/00F21Y101/02H01L29/18H01L33/00
- Examiner
- NELMS, DAVID
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Optolum, Inc.
- Core tech
- F21V29/02F21V29/00F21S4/00F21V19/00
- Counsel
- Jacob Steven Wharton · Leah R. McCoy · Leigh John Martinson
- Firm
- McCarter & English, LLP, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Cree, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Blaney Harper · Edwin Garcia · Peter Daniel Siddoway
- Firm
- Jones Day, Sage Patent Group
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jacob Steven Wharton | Optolum, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Leah R. McCoy | Optolum, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Leigh John Martinson | Optolum, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Blaney Harper | Cree, Inc. | Defendant |
| Edwin Garcia | Cree, Inc. | Defendant |
| Peter Daniel Siddoway | Cree, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1511 · Fed. Cir. · closed 12 June 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 22-1511?
22-1511 is a patent infringement action brought by Optolum, Inc. against Cree, Inc., filed on 4 Mar 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 12 June 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 22-1511?
US7389905B2 (“Flip chip bonding tool tip”), assigned to ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC., currently inactive; US6831303B2 (“Light emitting diode light source”), assigned to OPTOLUM, INC., currently inactive; US6354479B1 (“Dissipative ceramic bonding tip”), assigned to ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC.|REIBER, STEVEN FREDERICK; US7242028B2 (“Light emitting diode light source”), assigned to OPTOLUM, INC.; US6935548B2 (“Dissipative ceramic bonding tool tip”), assigned to REIBER, STEVEN FREDERICK|ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC.. The record also lists Light emitting diode light source.
How was case 22-1511 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1511 take?
465 calendar days, from filing on 4 Mar 2022 to closure on 12 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1511?
Jacob Steven Wharton, Leah R. McCoy and Leigh John Martinson are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Optolum. Blaney Harper, Edwin Garcia and Peter Daniel Siddoway appear for defendant Cree.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1511 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.