SemiLED Innovations v. Menard, Inc. — LED Patent Infringement Dismissed With Prejudice in 92 Days
SemiLED Innovations, LLC asserted four LED semiconductor patents against Menard, Inc., targeting a broad range of Patriot Lighting and Smart Electrician branded products sold at Menard’s retail locations. The case, filed in the Western District of Wisconsin, was resolved by stipulated dismissal with prejudice in just 92 days — a timeline that suggests a negotiated resolution reached before any substantive court rulings.
Four LED Patents, Eleven Retail Lighting Products, One Swift Resolution
SemiLED Innovations, LLC filed suit against Menard, Inc. on February 14, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, asserting infringement of four LED-related patents: US9530942B2, US8309971B2, US8963196B2, and US7128454B2. The accused products span Menard’s private-label and in-store lighting range, including Patriot Lighting under-cabinet strips, solar motion sensor lights, flood landscape lights, vanity lights, recessed lights, dusk-to-dawn security wall packs, and a Smart Electrician portable work light — eleven distinct SKUs in total.
The case closed on May 16, 2024, just 92 days after filing, via a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) stipulated dismissal with prejudice. Critically, both parties agreed that all claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice and that each side will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. A dismissal with prejudice bars SemiLED from re-filing the same claims against Menard on these patents, providing Menard with a permanent shield against re-litigation on the asserted patents and products.
The 92-day duration is notably compressed — the case closed before any substantive motions, claim construction, or discovery disputes reached the court’s docket. This timeline is consistent with a pre-litigation negotiation that was formalised shortly after filing, or a licensing or settlement agreement reached promptly after the complaint triggered engagement. The absence of any fee award to either side, and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement, suggests a commercially neutral resolution, though the financial terms — if any exist — remain confidential and cannot be verified from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 92 days
92 days — well below the median patent case duration, suggesting early settlement or licensing resolution
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the outcome means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A), both parties jointly filed a stipulation to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. ‘With prejudice’ is the critical qualifier: it means the dismissal is final and on the merits, permanently barring SemiLED from re-filing the same infringement claims against Menard on these four patents. No court order was required — the stipulation itself is self-executing upon filing.
Voluntary + permanent dismissalSemiLED surrenders the right to re-assert these patents against Menard
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, SemiLED Innovations permanently forfeits its ability to bring the same infringement claims against Menard on US9530942B2, US8309971B2, US8963196B2, and US7128454B2. While SemiLED retains the patents and may assert them against other defendants, Menard now holds a complete defence against re-litigation. Whether SemiLED received compensation in exchange is not disclosed in the public record.
No re-litigation possible vs. MenardMenard secures permanent protection on all eleven accused product lines
Menard, Inc. exits litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal covering all eleven accused Patriot Lighting and Smart Electrician SKUs. This provides durable legal certainty: SemiLED cannot revive these specific claims. Menard also avoided any fee or cost award against it. The absence of a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity, however, means the patents themselves remain intact and enforceable against third parties.
Full dismissal, no cost liabilitySemiLED’s four LED patents remain live enforcement tools in the broader market
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the Menard dispute. SemiLED’s LED patents — covering semiconductor LED structures and lighting configurations — remain issued and enforceable against other retail or manufacturing defendants. Other LED lighting retailers, OEMs, or distributors selling comparable products should note that this outcome does not extinguish the patents’ validity or scope. A swift settlement of this kind may signal that SemiLED is an active licensing programme.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SemiLED Innovations, LLC | Company | LED semiconductor patent licensing entity — holder of US9530942B2 and three further LED patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Menard, Inc. | Company | Menard, Inc. — Midwest retail chain selling Patriot Lighting and Smart Electrician branded LED productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cecil E. Key | Attorney | Counsel for SemiLED Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for SemiLED Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for SemiLED Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP Law | Law Firm | Representing SemiLED Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Key IP Law Group, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing SemiLED Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles Johnson Meyer | Attorney | Counsel for Menard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Edward Motylinski | Attorney | Counsel for Menard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | W. Anthony Andrews | Attorney | Counsel for Menard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ottosen DiNolfo Hasenbalg & Castaldo, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Menard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Menard, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Wisconsin Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A) and dismisses ‘all claims and counterclaims brought by either of them’ with prejudice, with each party bearing its own fees and costs. The breadth of the dismissal — covering all claims bilaterally — eliminates any residual litigation risk between these parties on the four asserted patents. The mutual cost-bearing clause is consistent with a commercially negotiated exit and suggests neither party extracted a fee concession, though it does not confirm or exclude the existence of a separate financial settlement.
US9530942B2, US8309971B2, US8963196B2 & US7128454B2 — LED Semiconductor Lighting Patents
The four patents asserted by SemiLED Innovations span core LED semiconductor and lighting design technology. US9530942B2 and US8963196B2 relate to LED device and package structures; US8309971B2 covers LED fabrication and device configurations; US7128454B2 addresses LED light source structures and optical arrangements. The breadth of the portfolio — spanning both component-level and fixture-level claims — enables assertion against a wide range of LED product categories, from under-cabinet strips to outdoor security flood lights.
Strategically, a four-patent portfolio of this type is well-suited to a licensing-oriented enforcement programme in the consumer and retail LED lighting sector. The accused Patriot Lighting product range — which spans indoor, outdoor, security, and landscape applications — suggests SemiLED mapped its claims deliberately across Menard’s full LED private-label catalogue. Other retailers, distributors, and OEMs sourcing comparable LED products should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk, particularly given the lack of any invalidity ruling in this case.
Should you run an FTO against US9530942B2 and the SemiLED LED patent portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing integrated LED lighting products — including under-cabinet strips, motion sensor security lights, dusk-to-dawn fixtures, vanity lights, recessed downlights, and portable work lights — should assess exposure to SemiLED’s four-patent portfolio. The breadth of accused products in the Menard case, covering both indoor and outdoor categories, indicates these patents are drafted with wide product coverage in mind. A swift dismissal without invalidity findings means the claims remain unlitigated and unconstrained.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to map specific LED product designs against the claims of US9530942B2, US8309971B2, US8963196B2, and US7128454B2 in minutes. Eureka’s prior art analysis and claim-charting tools help identify design-around opportunities or invalidity arguments before a demand letter forces the issue. Run your FTO analysis before expanding your LED product SKU range — not after.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9530942B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED Lighting Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. District Courts
These cases involve LED semiconductor and lighting patent assertions in U.S. district courts, comparable to SemiLED’s enforcement actions in the Western District of Wisconsin.
What this case signals for the LED lighting retail IP landscape
A four-patent assertion resolved in 92 days without a single substantive ruling carries clear signals for IP teams across the LED retail and manufacturing supply chain.
Speed of resolution suggests licensing programme, not full litigation strategy
Cases that close this fast — before claim construction and often before a scheduling order is fully set — typically reflect either a pre-existing licensing relationship or a rapid agreement reached once litigation was filed. IP and legal teams at other LED lighting retailers should assess whether SemiLED’s portfolio presents a licensing demand risk, not just a litigation risk.
With-prejudice terms protect Menard but do not invalidate the asserted patents
SemiLED’s four LED patents survive this case legally intact. No invalidity finding, no claim construction limiting scope. Any competitor or retailer selling functionally similar LED products — under-cabinet strips, motion sensor security lights, dusk-to-dawn fixtures — should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and consider freedom-to-operate analysis before expanding their LED product range.
SemiLED v Menard — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means all of SemiLED’s infringement claims against Menard on the four asserted LED patents are permanently resolved. SemiLED cannot re-file the same claims against Menard. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
SemiLED asserted four U.S. patents: US9530942B2, US8309971B2, US8963196B2, and US7128454B2. These patents relate to LED semiconductor structures, device configurations, and lighting arrangements. All four were asserted against Menard’s Patriot Lighting and Smart Electrician branded products.
Eleven products were accused, including: Patriot Lighting Direct Wire Integrated LED Under Cabinet Strip Light, LED Solar Motion Sensor Outdoor Security Area Light, Low Voltage Integrated LED Flood Landscape Light, Aura Black Post Light, LED Dusk-to-Dawn Outdoor Security Area Light, Collis Integrated LED Track Head, Bronze LED Dusk-to-Dawn Outdoor Security Wall Pack Light, Dowan Matte Black LED Vanity Light, Recessed Light, LED Tri Head Motion Sensor Outdoor Security Flood Light, and Smart Electrician 3500 Lumen LED Portable Work Light.
The case closed before any substantive motions or claim construction proceedings. A 92-day resolution from filing to stipulated dismissal is consistent with a licensing agreement or commercial settlement reached shortly after the complaint was served. The mutual cost-bearing provision and absence of any court rulings on the merits support this interpretation, though no financial terms are disclosed in the public record.
No. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice binds only the parties — SemiLED and Menard. SemiLED retains full ownership of US9530942B2, US8309971B2, US8963196B2, and US7128454B2, and may assert these patents against other retailers, manufacturers, or distributors selling LED lighting products that fall within the patent claims. No invalidity or non-infringement ruling was made in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.