......it seems a lot of battles have been or are b
Post# of 22456
Posted On: 01/08/2016 9:52:07 PM
......it seems a lot of battles have been or are being fought out via courts. If it gets too expensive, then make peace and sign a cross license agreement
Seoul Semiconductor is one of the top three LED manufacturers in the world and the leader in the LED industry in Korea. Seoul Semiconductor is committed to supplying customers with innovative and reliable LED products such as SMD LEDs, through hole type LEDs, custom displays, and sensors.
http://www.mouser.com/seoulsemiconductor/
Philips files LED patent lawsuit against Seoul Semiconductor
Philips has claimed that many of Seoul Semiconductor’s LED products infringe several Philips patents, and that a patent owned by Seoul Semiconductor should be ruled invalid.
By Tim Whitaker
An LED patent lawsuit has been filed by lighting company Philips (as Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV) and its LED subsidiary Philips Lumileds Lighting Company against Korea-based LED maker Seoul Semiconductor Company Ltd (SSC).
The lawsuit, filed on March 4, 2011 in the US District Court for the Central District of California, claims infringement of five patents owned by Lumileds. Also, Philips is seeking a declaratory judgment that a patent assigned to SSC is invalid. This appears to be a pre-emptive strike before Seoul uses the patent against Lumileds.
The complaint claims that a range of SSC products infringe Philips’ patents, including Acriche (e.g. A2, A3, A4), Top View (e.g. KWT801-S, SFT-722N-S), High Flux, Side View (e.g. SWAA07, SWAA05), and Z-Power (e.g. Z1, Z5, P4, P7, P9). The five patents owned by Philips Lumileds are:
• Patent no. 6,590,235 “High stability optical encapsulation and packaging for light-emitting diodes in the green, blue, and near-UV range.” Filed 2/2/2001, granted 7/8/2003.
• Patent no. 5,779,924 “Ordered interface texturing for a light emitting device.” Filed 3/22/1996, granted 7/14/1998.
• Patent no. 6,717,353 “Phosphor converted light emitting device.” Filed 10/14/2002, granted 4/6/2004.
• Patent no. 6,547,249 “Monolithic series/parallel led arrays formed on highly resistive substrates.” Filed 3/29/2001, granted 4/15/2003.
• Patent no. 6,274,924 “Surface mountable LED package.” Filed 11/5/1998, granted 8/14/2001.
Invalid patent
As well as the infringement claims, Philips is seeking a declaratory judgment that a patent assigned to SSC, and all the patent’s claims, are invalid. Philips is also seeking a declaratory judgment that its own LED products don’t infringe this same patent. The patent is:
• Patent no. 5,075,742 “Semiconductor structure for optoelectronic components with inclusions.” Filed 1/10/1991, granted 12/24/1991.
Philips was clearly worried that SSC might try to use the ‘742 patent against Lumileds. The complaint states that “SSC has engaged in a course of conduct that shows a preparedness and willingness to sue on the ’742 patent” and that the plaintiffs (Philips and Lumileds) “reasonably apprehend that they will be improperly sued by SSC on the ’742 patent.”
The patent was the subject of a press release by the Korean company in March 2009, in which the patent was described as being “fundamental” to InGaN-based LEDs. “Companies manufacturing or packaging blue, green, white or UV LEDs made from the semiconductor indium gallium nitride may be subject to patents owned by Seoul,” said the press release.
The patent was the subject of a ruling issued by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in a dispute between Nichia and Seoul. According to Seoul, “the ruling supports Seoul's view that the patent is fundamental to InGaN-based LED technology.”
The Philips complaint quotes an interview given on March 6, 2009, by the head of SSC’s research and development center, Sang Min Lee, who said: “I would like to emphasize that we also have patents that can be referred to as fundamental. One of them is our US patent 5,075,742. Just recently, the US District Court for Texas judged it impossible for LEDs that use InGaN in their active layers to avoid using the 742 patent because of their structural characteristics. This technology is also patented in Japan, Germany, the UK and France.”
The Philips complaint also alleges that Mr. Min Lee “went on to threaten the entire LED community” by stating that Seoul planned to be proactive in exercising its intellectual property rights.
Judging by the nature of the complaint, Philips clearly believes that it can put a stop to such activities, at least where the 742 patent is concerned.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2011/05/...uctor.html
http://www.greenpatentblog.com/2011/04/07/phi...ed-patent/
A couple of significant green patent lawsuits saw major developments last month.
First, in what might have become an epic battle, Philips Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor ended a two-way infringement suit involving six LED and semiconductor patents (Philips-Seoul_Dismissal) after settling their claims, including entering a cross-license agreement.
http://www.greenpatentblog.com/category/energ...cy/page/3/
......right below an interesting article about Nanosys
Green Patent Profile: Nanosys IP Covers Lots of Dots
A search in Cleantech PatentEdge™ yields 201 U.S., international and European patents and published applications listing Nanosys as owner and assignee.
Filler said that Nanosys’s patents comprise several technology or product families, including, for example with respect to its quantum dot technology, the core material of the quantum dots, the material for the shell that surrounds the core, ligands to put the dots in a matrix, quantum dot films, various quantum dot combinations, and devices such as light sources with quantum dots for producing white light.
One substantial patent family relating to core-shell material is entitled “Highly Luminescent Color-Selective Nano-crystalline materials” which has been exclusively licensed to Nanosys from MIT and, according to Cleantech PatentEdge™, includes at least 8 issued U.S. patents and 4 or more pending/allowed U.S. applications (Nano Matrix Patents).
For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,322,901 (‘901 Patent) is the parent patent in this family and was recently successfully defended in an ex parte reexamination proceeding instituted by Nanoco in the United Kingdom.
.....that Nanoco
2013 Review: LED Manufacturers Full Blown Patent Disputes.
http://www.ledinside.com/outlook/2014/1/2013_...t_disputes
29 July 2015
Seoul Semiconductor wins US patent infringement lawsuit against Craig Electronics
After South Korean LED maker Seoul Semiconductor filed a lawsuit in July 2014 asserting that US-based Craig Electronics' sales of LED back-lighting unit (BLU) products infringed five of its patents, the US Federal District Court has now issued a judgment stating that Craig has acknowledged infringement of all the asserted patents as well as the validity of the patents.
The patents cover a wide range of technologies including, but not limited to, back-lighting units (BLUs), LED packaging, LED chips and epitaxial layers, and black hole lenses. Together, the patented technologies cover essential components and features of modern back-lighting units, including manufacturing systems, LED displays, and optical devices. In particular, Seoul Semiconductor's patented technology for lenses - having a curved shape at the center – helps to ensure uniform illumination across the entire area of the liquid-crystal display for back-lighting units, enhancing image quality on the LCD display, the firm claims.
"To safeguard our licensees' and customers' interests in using Seoul Semiconductor's patented technology, Seoul Semiconductor will continue to discover infringing LED application products in the market and maintains an enforcement program that will consider any and all enforcement options against third-party infringers who do not respect Seoul Semiconductor's intellectual property rights," states the firm. "Indeed, we are pursuing another patent infringement lawsuit against suspected infringers."
http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items...0715.shtml
LED business news: Seoul wins suit, Eaton and Philips announce results, new IoT player
Published on: August 6, 2015
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2015/08/...layer.html
Seoul and Osram sign LED patent cross license agreement ...
Under this mutually-beneficial agreement, both companies will collaborate and build on each other's strengths as strategic partners .
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2007/08/...ement.html
Cree, Seoul sign LED chip supply and IP agreements
Seoul Semiconductor will spend $40 million with Cree over the next 5 quarters, and the two companies have cross-licensed their white LED patents.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2006/05/...ments.html
Osram , Cree and Epistar, which one will you use?
http://blog.auxbeam.com/osram-cree-and-epista...l-you-use/
.... check the brightness after 10,000 hours Article also brings into focus othercountries & mfgs in the field
....the cross licensing agreements highlight the need for an ample supply source of qds for product going forward, imo
Seoul Semiconductor is one of the top three LED manufacturers in the world and the leader in the LED industry in Korea. Seoul Semiconductor is committed to supplying customers with innovative and reliable LED products such as SMD LEDs, through hole type LEDs, custom displays, and sensors.
http://www.mouser.com/seoulsemiconductor/
Philips files LED patent lawsuit against Seoul Semiconductor
Philips has claimed that many of Seoul Semiconductor’s LED products infringe several Philips patents, and that a patent owned by Seoul Semiconductor should be ruled invalid.
By Tim Whitaker
An LED patent lawsuit has been filed by lighting company Philips (as Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV) and its LED subsidiary Philips Lumileds Lighting Company against Korea-based LED maker Seoul Semiconductor Company Ltd (SSC).
The lawsuit, filed on March 4, 2011 in the US District Court for the Central District of California, claims infringement of five patents owned by Lumileds. Also, Philips is seeking a declaratory judgment that a patent assigned to SSC is invalid. This appears to be a pre-emptive strike before Seoul uses the patent against Lumileds.
The complaint claims that a range of SSC products infringe Philips’ patents, including Acriche (e.g. A2, A3, A4), Top View (e.g. KWT801-S, SFT-722N-S), High Flux, Side View (e.g. SWAA07, SWAA05), and Z-Power (e.g. Z1, Z5, P4, P7, P9). The five patents owned by Philips Lumileds are:
• Patent no. 6,590,235 “High stability optical encapsulation and packaging for light-emitting diodes in the green, blue, and near-UV range.” Filed 2/2/2001, granted 7/8/2003.
• Patent no. 5,779,924 “Ordered interface texturing for a light emitting device.” Filed 3/22/1996, granted 7/14/1998.
• Patent no. 6,717,353 “Phosphor converted light emitting device.” Filed 10/14/2002, granted 4/6/2004.
• Patent no. 6,547,249 “Monolithic series/parallel led arrays formed on highly resistive substrates.” Filed 3/29/2001, granted 4/15/2003.
• Patent no. 6,274,924 “Surface mountable LED package.” Filed 11/5/1998, granted 8/14/2001.
Invalid patent
As well as the infringement claims, Philips is seeking a declaratory judgment that a patent assigned to SSC, and all the patent’s claims, are invalid. Philips is also seeking a declaratory judgment that its own LED products don’t infringe this same patent. The patent is:
• Patent no. 5,075,742 “Semiconductor structure for optoelectronic components with inclusions.” Filed 1/10/1991, granted 12/24/1991.
Philips was clearly worried that SSC might try to use the ‘742 patent against Lumileds. The complaint states that “SSC has engaged in a course of conduct that shows a preparedness and willingness to sue on the ’742 patent” and that the plaintiffs (Philips and Lumileds) “reasonably apprehend that they will be improperly sued by SSC on the ’742 patent.”
The patent was the subject of a press release by the Korean company in March 2009, in which the patent was described as being “fundamental” to InGaN-based LEDs. “Companies manufacturing or packaging blue, green, white or UV LEDs made from the semiconductor indium gallium nitride may be subject to patents owned by Seoul,” said the press release.
The patent was the subject of a ruling issued by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in a dispute between Nichia and Seoul. According to Seoul, “the ruling supports Seoul's view that the patent is fundamental to InGaN-based LED technology.”
The Philips complaint quotes an interview given on March 6, 2009, by the head of SSC’s research and development center, Sang Min Lee, who said: “I would like to emphasize that we also have patents that can be referred to as fundamental. One of them is our US patent 5,075,742. Just recently, the US District Court for Texas judged it impossible for LEDs that use InGaN in their active layers to avoid using the 742 patent because of their structural characteristics. This technology is also patented in Japan, Germany, the UK and France.”
The Philips complaint also alleges that Mr. Min Lee “went on to threaten the entire LED community” by stating that Seoul planned to be proactive in exercising its intellectual property rights.
Judging by the nature of the complaint, Philips clearly believes that it can put a stop to such activities, at least where the 742 patent is concerned.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2011/05/...uctor.html
http://www.greenpatentblog.com/2011/04/07/phi...ed-patent/
A couple of significant green patent lawsuits saw major developments last month.
First, in what might have become an epic battle, Philips Electronics and Seoul Semiconductor ended a two-way infringement suit involving six LED and semiconductor patents (Philips-Seoul_Dismissal) after settling their claims, including entering a cross-license agreement.
http://www.greenpatentblog.com/category/energ...cy/page/3/
......right below an interesting article about Nanosys
Green Patent Profile: Nanosys IP Covers Lots of Dots
A search in Cleantech PatentEdge™ yields 201 U.S., international and European patents and published applications listing Nanosys as owner and assignee.
Filler said that Nanosys’s patents comprise several technology or product families, including, for example with respect to its quantum dot technology, the core material of the quantum dots, the material for the shell that surrounds the core, ligands to put the dots in a matrix, quantum dot films, various quantum dot combinations, and devices such as light sources with quantum dots for producing white light.
One substantial patent family relating to core-shell material is entitled “Highly Luminescent Color-Selective Nano-crystalline materials” which has been exclusively licensed to Nanosys from MIT and, according to Cleantech PatentEdge™, includes at least 8 issued U.S. patents and 4 or more pending/allowed U.S. applications (Nano Matrix Patents).
For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,322,901 (‘901 Patent) is the parent patent in this family and was recently successfully defended in an ex parte reexamination proceeding instituted by Nanoco in the United Kingdom.
.....that Nanoco
2013 Review: LED Manufacturers Full Blown Patent Disputes.
http://www.ledinside.com/outlook/2014/1/2013_...t_disputes
29 July 2015
Seoul Semiconductor wins US patent infringement lawsuit against Craig Electronics
After South Korean LED maker Seoul Semiconductor filed a lawsuit in July 2014 asserting that US-based Craig Electronics' sales of LED back-lighting unit (BLU) products infringed five of its patents, the US Federal District Court has now issued a judgment stating that Craig has acknowledged infringement of all the asserted patents as well as the validity of the patents.
The patents cover a wide range of technologies including, but not limited to, back-lighting units (BLUs), LED packaging, LED chips and epitaxial layers, and black hole lenses. Together, the patented technologies cover essential components and features of modern back-lighting units, including manufacturing systems, LED displays, and optical devices. In particular, Seoul Semiconductor's patented technology for lenses - having a curved shape at the center – helps to ensure uniform illumination across the entire area of the liquid-crystal display for back-lighting units, enhancing image quality on the LCD display, the firm claims.
"To safeguard our licensees' and customers' interests in using Seoul Semiconductor's patented technology, Seoul Semiconductor will continue to discover infringing LED application products in the market and maintains an enforcement program that will consider any and all enforcement options against third-party infringers who do not respect Seoul Semiconductor's intellectual property rights," states the firm. "Indeed, we are pursuing another patent infringement lawsuit against suspected infringers."
http://www.semiconductor-today.com/news_items...0715.shtml
LED business news: Seoul wins suit, Eaton and Philips announce results, new IoT player
Published on: August 6, 2015
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2015/08/...layer.html
Seoul and Osram sign LED patent cross license agreement ...
Under this mutually-beneficial agreement, both companies will collaborate and build on each other's strengths as strategic partners .
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2007/08/...ement.html
Cree, Seoul sign LED chip supply and IP agreements
Seoul Semiconductor will spend $40 million with Cree over the next 5 quarters, and the two companies have cross-licensed their white LED patents.
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2006/05/...ments.html
Osram , Cree and Epistar, which one will you use?
http://blog.auxbeam.com/osram-cree-and-epista...l-you-use/
.... check the brightness after 10,000 hours Article also brings into focus othercountries & mfgs in the field
....the cross licensing agreements highlight the need for an ample supply source of qds for product going forward, imo
(0)
(0)Quantum Materials Corp. (QTMM) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼