Wangs Alliance, Corp. v. Lumien Enterprise, Inc.
Infringement action filed 23 Dec 2021 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and closed 17 Feb 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10465888B1US10920971B2US10571101B2US10598358B2US10323832B2
- Case no.
- 1:21-cv-05270
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ga.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Georgia
- Chief judge
- Victoria M. Calvert
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Dec 2021 – 17 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 421 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- LED lighting methods and apparatus
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 methods and apparatus
LED related lighting methods and apparatus are described. Various features relate to water tight light fixtures. Some of the fixtures are spotlights while other fixture are intended for in ground use. The light fixtures in at least some embodiments include power control features. In spotlight embodiments beam angle and power or light output can be controlled without opening the light assembly or compromising the water tight seals which also protect against dirt. In ground embodiments support tilt angle setting which allow a user to set the light fixture to one or more tilt angles. Beam angle can also be changed in some embodiments as well as power control. Beam angle, power control and tilt angle adjustments are supported in some embodiments but need not be supported in all embodiments with some embodiments using one or more of the described features but not all features.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Nov 2019
- Earliest priority
- 18 Jan 2016
- Est. expiry
- 19 Jan 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ERDENER, BASAR · PUVANAKIJJAKORN, VORAVIT
- Classification
- F21S8/08F21V19/02F21V23/00F21V7/00F21V21/30F21V17/16F21V17/12F21V19/00F21V14/06F21V9/00F21V31/03F21V31/00F21V29/70F21V21/26H05B33/08F21V17/10F21W131/10F21Y101/00F21Y115/10H05B44/00H05B45/50
- Prosecution counsel
- Weiss & Arons LLP
- Examiner
- GARLEN, ALEXANDER K
LED lighting methods and apparatus
LED related lighting methods and apparatus are described. Various features relate to water tight light fixtures. Some of the fixtures are spotlights while other fixture are intended for in ground use. The light fixtures in at least some embodiments include power control features. In spotlight embodiments beam angle and power or light output can be controlled without opening the light assembly or compromising the water tight seals which also protect against dirt. In ground embodiments support tilt angle setting which allow a user to set the light fixture to one or more tilt angles. Beam angle can also be changed in some embodiments as well as power control. Beam angle, power control and tilt angle adjustments are supported in some embodiments but need not be supported in all embodiments with some embodiments using one or more of the described features but not all features.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 16 Feb 2021
- Earliest priority
- 18 Jan 2016
- Est. expiry
- 19 Jan 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ERDENER, BASAR · PUVANAKIJJAKORN, VORAVIT
- Classification
- F21V21/26F21V19/02H05B45/10H05B45/37H05B45/50H05B45/14H05B45/38F21V29/70F21S8/08F21V31/00F21V31/03F21V9/00F21V14/06F21V17/10F21V19/00F21V17/12F21V17/16F21V21/30F21V7/00F21V23/00F21Y115/10F21W131/10F21Y101/00H05B44/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Weiss & Arons LLP
- Examiner
- COUGHLIN, ANDREW J
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
Wangs Alliance, Corp.
- Core tech
- F21S8/08F21V19/02F21V23/00F21V7/00
- Counsel
- Etai Lahav · Jonathan Auerbach · Stephen Luke Anderson · Tigran Vardanian
- Firm
- Luke Anderson PC (a/k/a Advanced Technology Law), Radulescu LLP, Wangs Alliance Corporation
Lumien Enterprise, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Cory Mull · Seth Kincaid Trimble · W. Scott Creasman
- Firm
- Taylor English Duma LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Etai Lahav | Wangs Alliance, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan Auerbach | Wangs Alliance, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Stephen Luke Anderson | Wangs Alliance, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Tigran Vardanian | Wangs Alliance, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Cory Mull | Lumien Enterprise, Inc. | Defendant |
| Seth Kincaid Trimble | Lumien Enterprise, Inc. | Defendant |
| W. Scott Creasman | Lumien Enterprise, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting and Defendant Lumien Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Lumien Lighting, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the instant lawsuit with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses.”
Case 1:21-cv-05270 · N.D. Ga. · closed 17 February 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 1:21-cv-05270?
1:21-cv-05270 is a patent infringement action brought by Wangs Alliance, Corp. against Lumien Enterprise, Inc., filed on 23 Dec 2021 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The case closed on 17 February 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:21-cv-05270?
US10465888B1 (“LED lighting methods and apparatus”), assigned to WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION, currently active; US10920971B2 (“LED lighting methods and apparatus”), assigned to WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION, currently active; US10571101B2 (“LED lighting methods and apparatus”), assigned to WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION; US10598358B2 (“LED lighting methods and apparatus”), assigned to WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION; US10323832B2 (“LED lighting methods and apparatus”), assigned to WANGS ALLIANCE CORPORATION. The record also lists LED lighting methods and apparatus.
How was case 1:21-cv-05270 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Wangs Alliance Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting and Defendant Lumien Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Lumien Lighting, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the instant lawsuit with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:21-cv-05270 take?
421 calendar days, from filing on 23 Dec 2021 to closure on 17 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:21-cv-05270?
Chief Judge Victoria M. Calvert presided. Etai Lahav, Jonathan Auerbach, Stephen Luke Anderson and Tigran Vardanian are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Wangs Alliance. Cory Mull, Seth Kincaid Trimble and W. Scott Creasman appear for defendant Lumien Enterprise.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:21-cv-05270 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.