Patentability filed 2 Nov 2021 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 16 May 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
This invention is related to LED Light Extraction for optoelectronic applications. More particularly the invention relates to (Al, Ga, In)N combined with optimized optics and phosphor layer for highly efficient (Al, Ga, In)N based light emitting diodes applications, and its fabrication method. A further extension is the general combination of a shaped high refractive index light extraction material combined with a shaped optical element.
A transparent light emitting diode (LED) includes a plurality of III-nitride layers, including an active region that emits light, wherein all of the layers except for the active region are transparent for an emission wavelength of the light, such that the light is extracted effectively through all of the layers and in multiple directions through the layers. Moreover, the surface of one or more of the III-nitride layers may be roughened, textured, patterned or shaped to enhance light extraction.
The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
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
"ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 56 of the ‘789 patent are unpatentable"
Case 22-1106 · Fed. Cir. · closed 16 May 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.
22-1106 is a patent patentability brought by The Regents of the University Of California against Satco Products, Inc., filed on 2 Nov 2021 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 16 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 22-1106?
US9240529B2 (“Textured phosphor conversion layer light emitting diode”), assigned to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, currently active; US10217916B2 (“Transparent light emitting diodes”), assigned to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, currently active; US9859464B2 (“Lighting emitting diode with light extracted from front and back sides of a lead frame”), assigned to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; US7781789B2 (“Transparent mirrorless light emitting diode”), assigned to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. The record also lists Transparent mirrorless light emitting diode.
How was case 22-1106 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: "ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, 28, 29, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 47, and 56 of the ‘789 patent are unpatentable"
How long did case 22-1106 take?
560 calendar days, from filing on 2 Nov 2021 to closure on 16 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1106?
Angelo Christopher, Jennifer Hayes, Seth D. Levy and Shawn G. Hansen are recorded as counsel for plaintiff The Regents of the University Of California. Brian Joseph Prew, Heath Briggs, Nicholas A. Brown, Robert P. Lynn Jr., Scott Joseph Bornstein and Stephen Ullmer appear for defendant Satco Products.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 22-1106 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1106 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.
Patsnap Eureka
Eureka AI Agent
Help us improve
Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.
