Philips Dismisses Patent Lawsuit Against RAB Lighting

(Image: Philips Lighting)

Philips Lighting dismisses an infringement claim filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission against RAB Lighting. However, it plans to continues its claims against six other lighting companies, tED magazine reported.

In letters to the commission, Philips requested the commission not to investigate RAB Lighting and to withdraw a part of its complaint, which included claims 10 and 11 of the U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559 regarding Philips’ LED driver technology.

The Amsterdam-based company said it would still rely on claims 10 and 11 for domestic industry, but do not assert either one of them against any of the remaining proposed respondents in its complaint.

It dropped the patent infringement case against RAB Lighting; however, it went on with its claims against six other companies, including members of the National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED) Topaz Lighting, Satco Prodcuts and Wangs Alliance Corporation (WAC Lighting).

The others named are Feit Electric, Lowe’s, and MSi Lighting. The lighting giant requests a 60 day investigation during which five of the named companies are not allowed to import products into the United States and asks the commission to take action by November 6.

WAC Lighting and Feit Electric responded to the complaint, saying the Philips filling is forcing them ‘to pay onerous and improper royalties’ for Philips patents. On the other, Philips called that as an unfair competition that allows them to take advantages of its properties without payment.

Cree Settles IP Infringement Dispute with MaxBrite

(Image: Cree)

Cree and MaxBrite announced in a report filed in the U.S. District Court the settlement of the patent infringement lawsuit Cree instituted in November last year.

In the case Cree accused MaxBrite of infringing on a Cree patent and trademark by using Cree LED light sources in MaxBrite’s Shoebox Parking Lot Fixtures, of which the packaging shows Cree products are contained.

Cree also sued a flashlight company E. Mishan & Sons for similar reasons days before it brought up the case against MaxBrite. The company claimed that it did warn MaxBrite about possible infringement before it took legal action to protect its intellectual properties.

MaxBrite responded two months after the claim that it denied allegations Cree had made.

Cree purchased MaxBrite’s lights and the search of its LED products was conducted by an investigator. During the investigation, it was once alleged that the purchased items did not contain Cree’s LED light products or component parts.

The case was settled in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, where MaxBrite is based. Terms of the settlement; however, were not revealed.