It also does not affect other forms of LED lighting used for film

Judge Essex’s decision is a real win for Litepanels because it does not simply defend a patent claim—the initial ruling really protects a LED high bay light investment in industry changing Intellectual Property,” William D. Belanger, trial counsel on the Litepanels case, told IPFrontline. Belanger, is a partner in Pepper Hamilton’s Boston office and co- chair of the firm’s IP Department.

“Companies like Litepanels are finding that their markets are being undercut by cheap, illegal imports. In this case, the fear is that a Chinese company could quickly change its name and continue to illegally produce these knock-offs,” Belanger said. However, the favorable commission ruling, he noted, should prevent any imports using this technology, not just imports from the parties named in the case.

The General Exclusion Order does not affect the importation of emergency lighting, cellular phones, automobile taillights, or LED bulbs themselves. It also does not affect other forms of LED lighting used for film, video or photography such as RGB and Remote Phosphor technologies.

Of the fourteen (14) companies named in the complaint, Litepanels said all of the major manufacturers have chosen to license its intellectual property to continue manufacturing LED lighting products for sale in the United States.

评论