Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Litepanels Initiates Legal Action to Stop Most LED fixtures from entering the United

Michael Panfeld

Michael Panfeld

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
857
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Washington DC
Litepanels has filed a what is known as a "337" case against most of their LED competition. If they win, they will either block these companies from bringing in these LED fixtures entirely or they will use a judgement as leverage to extract royalties that in turn, will raise our purchase price significantly. Amongst the targets are Cool Lights and Stellar, makers of some of the best low cost lighting options out there. I don't have a dog in this race, I just happen to work in the Trade Remedy industry. I can tell you though that this is a major action that will cost 10s if not 100s of thousands of attorneys fees on both sides. This will absolutely affect our lighting choices and purchase prices no matter who wins or loses.

Some may want to consider sending a letter to Litepanels or organizing a boycott of Litepanels, for effectively trying to either raise our costs and/or reduce our choices for LED fixtures.

Docket No: 2838
Document Type: 337 Complaint
Filed By: William D. Belanger
Firm/Org: Pepper Hamilton LLP
Behalf Of: Litepanels, Inc., and Litepanels
Date Received: August 3, 2011
Confidential: Yes

Commodity: Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof


Country: none

Description: Letter to James R. Holbein, Secretary, USITC, requesting that the Commission conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended regarding Certain LED Photographic Lighting devices and Components Thereof . The proposed respondents are FLOLIGHT, LLC, Campbell, CA; PROMPTER PEOPLE, INC., Campbell, CA; IKAN CORPORATION, Houston, TX; ADVANCED BUSINESS COMPUTER SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Cool Lights USA, Reno, NV; ELATION LIGHTING, INC, Los Angeles, CA; FOTODIOX INC., Waukegan, IL; FUZHOU F&V PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT CO., LTD., China; YUYAO LISHUAI PHOTO-FACILITY CO., LTD., China; YUYAO FOTODIOX PHOTO EQUIPMENT CO., LTD; SHANTOU NANGUANG PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT CO., LTD, China; VISIO LIGHT, INC., Taiwan; TIANJIN WUQING HUANYU FILM AND TV EQUIPMENT FACTORY, China; STELLAR LIGHTING SYSTEMS, Los Angeles, CA; and YUYAO LILY COLLECTION CO., LTD., China.

Status: Pending Institution
 
Wow, sad... I smell a mighty big pile of BS... Of course, we can't read the actual filing in its entirety yet.
 
This is NOT good news.
 
That is awful.
I for one will never touch Litepanels, and will encourage all my contacts to follow suit.
 
Seems that they believe they rather compete in court than on merit??

SHAME
 
Not good.

So our order will be switched to another vendor.
 
My gut reaction is similar - this is a very nasty little maneuver, it seems. I don't like it.

On giving my reasoning a chance, though, I'd like to understand a little better and it seems that some here might be able to help with that.

What is a "337"?
Is this something where they have patents or IP that is being illegally or questionably used and they are just protecting what is rightfully theirs?
Or is this some sort of request that the U.S. either levy Tariffs on their competitions imports and potentially deny them entirely?
And if so, why would the same not apply to Litepanels - are they made in the US?


Edit: Upon searching the USPTO, it looks like they have at least 12 patents going on that concern their products...I imagine this has something to do with that?
 
Cool Lights are my favorite. This really sucks. Lite Panels are super expensive anyway, I'll happily continue to NOT buy from them, haha.
 
Michael Olsen said:
My gut reaction is similar - this is a very nasty little maneuver, it seems. I don't like it.

On giving my reasoning a chance, though, I'd like to understand a little better and it seems that some here might be able to help with that.

What is a "337"?
Is this something where they have patents or IP that is being illegally or questionably used and they are just protecting what is rightfully theirs?
Or is this some sort of request that the U.S. either levy Tariffs on their competitions imports and potentially deny them entirely?
And if so, why would the same not apply to Litepanels - are they made in the US?


Edit: Upon searching the USPTO, it looks like they have at least 12 patents going on that concern their products...I imagine this has something to do with that?
Click to expand...

Yes, a 337 is essentially a patent infringement case. Because the allegedly infringing products are crossing into the US, they can ask Customs to seize all of the suspect products. Its a very draconian remedy. At this point, its not clear what is being alleged by Litepanels or which patents it is claiming are being infringed. It may also be the case that Cool Lights, etc may have their own patents.
 
In the software world companies like this are know as "patent trolls".

What the hell do they have a patent on, the idea of using LED lights as film lights?
 
An array of LEDs should not be patentable. It is the obvious thing to do with them.
But the USPTO is crazy for money.
 
Here's the trail I'm looking at:

In 2008, Litepanels sued Sony in Litepanels LLC et al. v. Sony Electronics Inc. et al., case number 2:08-cv-00291, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

This concerned patent Nos. 6,948,823 and 7,163,302 ("Wide area lighting apparatus and effects system" and "Camera-mounted semiconductor lighting apparatus" respectively.)

Those patents list the Assignee as Contrast Lighting Services and the Inventors as Pohlert; Rudy G., et al.

There are a total of 12 patents on file at the USPTO with the Asignee listed as Contrast Lighitng Services.

1 7,972,022 Stand-mounted light panel for natural illumination in film, television or video
2 7,874,701 Lighting apparatus with adjustable lenses or filters
3 7,604,361 Versatile lighting apparatus and associated kit
4 7,510,290 Stand-mounted light panel for natural illumination in film, television or video
5 7,429,117 Camera-mounted dimmable lighting apparatus
6 7,331,681 Lighting apparatus with adjustable lenses or filters
7 7,318,652 Versatile stand-mounted wide area lighting apparatus
8 7,163,302 Camera-mounted semiconductor lighting apparatus
9 7,140,742 Surface-mount semiconductor lighting apparatus
10 6,948,823 Wide area lighting apparatus and effects system
11 6,824,283 Wide area fluorescent lighting apparatus
12 6,749,310 Wide area lighting effects system

Here is a link to the list on the USPTO website.

I honestly don't know about this. As I said, I was immediately upset. But now knowing the they do have patents here - I don't know. If their IP is being stepped on, I believe they should be able to protect it under the law. I would expect RED (or Sony or Apple or Microsoft or McDonalds or Ford or GE or anyone else) to do the same if they saw another company using their technology in a way that infringed patents.

As to whether or not they should receive a patent for a "stand mounted light panel"...I don't know. Did ARRI receive patents for a "stand mounted light"? (I don't know about that...but they do have one for "Filter and matte box support system" from 1983). Do FX hardware companies have patents for a "curved green surface" in their cyclorama products?

Maybe the thing that is upsetting here is the state of the patent system...but I feel myself getting waaay off topic.
 
Those patents seem far too vague... and one was filled in 2008 by Litepanels when LED lights were already being used in arrays....
 
Michael: I agree with you on legitimate IP infringement, especially the pirating of films and related IP. However, their latest patent, dated July 5th 2011, less than 1 month ago, appears to patent putting a LED panel in a frame that can be mounted on a camera or a light stand, may or may not have a dimmer, may or may not have a battery, may or may not allow for gels or diffusion to be attached.

That description sounds like pretty much any LED light that has ever been sold.
 
Michael Panfeld said:
Michael: I agree with you on legitimate IP infringement, especially the pirating of films and related IP. However, their latest patent, dated July 5th 2011, less than 1 month ago, appears to patent putting a LED panel in a frame that can be mounted on a camera or a light stand, may or may not have a dimmer, may or may not have a battery, may or may not allow for gels or diffusion to be attached.

That description sounds like pretty much any LED light that has ever been sold.
Click to expand...

I agree. Hence my thought that this might not be so much about Lightpanels in particular, but about the state of USPTO in terms of accepting patents which are far too broad.

It's one thing to have the rights, for instance to "John and Susie: A Love Story" but quite another to have the exclusive rights to "Stories about people who may or may not be living and between the ages of 18 and 85 who fall in love at some point".
 
I think that the patent system is turning into a huge morass and needs some serious reform. It seems to me like, due to lack of time and expertise that isn't really there fault, patent officials are issuing patents that are way too broad and vague and it leads to tons of wasteful litigation. If you read this article on software patents, its absolutely disgusting what companies are doing. Some company in India is suing pretty much every major software company out there, claiming it has a patent on the concept of a "feed"!
 
The Patent process has become total BS. Regarding Apple they are being sued along with many APP store developers because they have a button within the program, allowing a user to upgrade. Seriously? I had shareware years ago with a button so you can pay to upgrade to the full version.

And to prevent anyone else from building LED light fixtures on a c-stand is insane. Anti-competition is bad for the industry and economy.
 
However, their latest patent, dated July 5th 2011, less than 1 month ago
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that July 2011 is the date it was granted. It can take several years from the time a patent is filed until it is granted. Some of the ones in the list above were filed in 2001.

My fastest patent was granted in ~2.5 years. I have others that were filed 6 years ago and still not granted. Its an interesting process.
 
I am a HUGE fan of Dedolight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top