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

I am all for protecting one's intellectual property and would respect that in any case, but if the patent is as simply stated in the press release, I think it's bogus! Patent is related to using LED lights for Photography??? That's like patenting cars that can be driven on a paved road and no one else can sell a car that's been designed to drive on a paved road but they can design a car for off road. If these alleged patent infringements are related to the technology inside the units which means that others utilizing their own technology are free from persecution I am in support of Lightpanels but that doesn't sound like the case here...

Larry
 
Wow! I guess that means Cool Lights just got more expensive (their LEDs anyways)? I usually fall on the side of patent protection, so if Lightpanels was able to prove in a court of law that their technology is such that other companies were infringing on the patents and must pay them a fee to use it, I guess we have to accept it and be prepared to pay more for competing brands than we have in the past. Now that the case is over, it would be interesting to get some insight from Richard at Cool Lights or other companies involved in this. I'm always curious to hear the other side of the story.
 
I'm sure eBay will be full of Chinese knockoffs. Anyone that wants to legally sell white LED lights for photography in the US has to negotiate and pay a license fee to Litepanels. So, yeah. There will be less competition and higher prices.

Is this solely about patenting the idea of white light LEDs being used for photography? Did Litepanels invent anything tangible? Does anyone know where the actual patent is online? I'm trying to find it.
 
Brandon J.F. said:
I'm sure eBay will be full of Chinese knockoffs. Anyone that wants to legally sell white LED lights for photography in the US has to negotiate and pay a license fee to Litepanels. So, yeah. There will be less competition and higher prices.

Is this solely about patenting the idea of white light LEDs being used for photography? Did Litepanels invent anything tangible? Does anyone know where the actual patent is online? I'm trying to find it.
Click to expand...
From what I can tell, it is entirely based on their implementation of LEDs for photographic lighting. Any other lighting purpose falls outside of their patent and is therefore not applicable. For example, Christmas lights do not fall under the patent. :-)
 
Steve Sherrick said:
From what I can tell, it is entirely based on their implementation of LEDs for photographic lighting. Any other lighting purpose falls outside of their patent and is therefore not applicable. For example, Christmas lights do not fall under the patent. :-)
Click to expand...

Well, if that's the case I guess we can keep an eye out for rebranded LED workshop lights that just happened to color balanced and suitable for photography...
 
This also means a small boost for other competing techs like plasma etc.
 
They received a patent for mounting lights on cameras. Filed in 2005. Not just LEDs: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1="Contrast+Lighting+Services"&OS="Contrast+Lighting+Services"&RS="Contrast+Lighting+Services"

Want to put filters on your lights? Also filed in 2005. Not just LEDs. Well, that groundbreaking technology is also patented by Litepanels: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1="Contrast+Lighting+Services"&OS="Contrast+Lighting+Services"&RS="Contrast+Lighting+Services"

They have 2 patents for "stand-mounted light panels". One filed in 2006 and one in 2009. They do not only cover LED lights.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=5&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1="Contrast+Lighting+Services"&OS="Contrast+Lighting+Services"&RS="Contrast+Lighting+Services"
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1="Contrast+Lighting+Services"&OS="Contrast+Lighting+Services"&RS="Contrast+Lighting+Services"

Do these only cover "stand-mounted" lights? What if we hold them or set them on something other than a stand? :)

I'm all for protecting IP, but this is stupid.
 
Litepanels is owned by the Vitec Group, a UK corporation. They have a reputation for buying up companies that hold patents and then leveraging the patents to extract licensing fees. This case is an example. To defend against this case would have cost several million dollars. It was cheaper to do a licensing agreement, as all the named defendents did in this case. Its a business model that I do not support. Vitec Group does not get any of my $$$.

Note that if you buy on Ebay, if it ships from outside the US, Customs now has a legal right (actually an obligation) to seize the LED at the border, unless the importer (you) have a licensing agreement; which you do not have.

The patents in this case are extremely dubious. However, nobody had the $$$ to get them overturned.
 
Steve Sherrick said:
From what I can tell, it is entirely based on their implementation of LEDs for photographic lighting. Any other lighting purpose falls outside of their patent and is therefore not applicable. For example, Christmas lights do not fall under the patent. :-)
Click to expand...

In a related story, Christmas lights have suddenly become out-of-stock across the nation. Stores in the photo district of NYC have been especially hard hit.
 
Let me get my thoughts together on this and I'll tell what I know. Plus the decision the ITC made is "confidential" so I need to see what I can talk about. Whatever you have read so far on all this is Litepanels press releases so its got a definite spin on it. None of the people on the other side of this case have said anything as of yet because there are still many unanswered questions that should have been answered by the commission in any "normal" ruling.
 
Richard: would love to hear the other side. As you may know, my law firm was initial talks with two of the defendants. Ultimately, we were not hired. However, we are very curious as to how this turned out.
 
So does the royalty only apply to US imports of the rival products ? ie will Australian or European import prices be unchanged?
You've really got to love the might is right nature of US litigation.
 
I have to admit, I'm pretty angry right now. This has all the hallmarks of a large company making use of it's political capital (and savvy) to improve it's business position (and profits) at the expense of:

a) competition
b) the lower prices that inevitably come from competition

This also sounds like a company that is very well versed in Patent law and is using it to improve it's market share (as opposed to doing it the old fashioned way, by simply making better products?). When's the last time LitePanel's even came out with a significant new product?

Considering how stiff their competition is getting, their corporate strategy does seem to be: if you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

What's distressing is that they were granted a patent for the "use of LED's in photography and filming" in the first place. How is that possible?

The got a patent not for the WHAT (ie for actually inventing LED's), but for a tiny distinction about the HOW (for being the first to lay claim to the use of LED's on set).

They were rewarded not for INVENTION, but for being THE FIRST to file the patent.

But how they could win a patent over something so broad as the use of LED's across an entire industry? How can something so broad be patented?

By that logic...I'd like to patent the shape of a CIRCLE and lay claim to owning the entire GLOBE!

This is so fucked up.

They're smart. They're taking full advantage of an outdated US patent system, and now having won their case, have in effect stymied competition and all but guaranteed that prices will go up.
 
Michael Panfeld said:
Litepanels is owned by the Vitec Group, a UK corporation. They have a reputation for buying up companies that hold patents and then leveraging the patents to extract licensing fees. This case is an example. To defend against this case would have cost several million dollars. It was cheaper to do a licensing agreement, as all the named defendents did in this case. Its a business model that I do not support. Vitec Group does not get any of my $$$.
Click to expand...

Vitec group own, amongst others, "O Connor" "Sachtler" "Vinten" "Anton Bauer" "Autoscript" "Petrol" "Manfrotto" "Gitzo" "Lastolite" "Kata"


http://www.vitecgroup.com/OurBusinesses.aspx
 
Steve G said:
Vitec group own, amongst others, "O Connor" "Sachtler" "Vinten" "Anton Bauer" "Autoscript" "Petrol" "Manfrotto" "Gitzo" "Lastolite" "Kata"


http://www.vitecgroup.com/OurBusinesses.aspx
Click to expand...

Yup. The Vitec Group is just an investment vehicle, a holding company. Vitec didn't spring from the O Conner, Satchler or Manfrotto companies. Just a bunch of wealthy British investors who bought out these brands and, sometimes leverages their patents to maximize profits and market share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top