A previous post discussed AgiLight‘s summary judgment win at the district court level where the LED lighting developer’s products were found not to infringe two GE patents, U.S. Patent Nos.7,633,055 (’055 Patent) and 7,832,896 (’896 Patent)
Two other GE patents – 7,160,140 entitled “LED string light engine” (’140 Patent) and 7,520,771 entitled “LED string light engine and devices that are illuminated by the string light Engine”(’771 Patent) – had previously been found not infringed in an earlier summary judgment decision.
The ’055 and ’896 Patents are entitled “Sealed light emitting diode assemblies including annular gaskets and method of making same” and “LED light engine,” respectively, and relate to LED string light engine structures and assembly methods.
GE appealed, and a recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment with respect to the ’896 Patent (and the two other GE patents) and affirmed summary judgment with regard to the ’055 Patent.
The Federal Circuit found the district court’s interpretation of the claim term “IDC connector” in the ’140 and ’771 Patents was incorrect and unduly narrow. The district court limited it to a more specialized connector having four electrical terminals and a two-part housing that snaps together so the terminals pierce the conductor’s insulation.
The term should have been construed consistent with its ordinary meaning of “a connector that displaces insulation surrounding an insulated conductor to make electrical contact with the conductor.”
The issue for the ’896 Patent was whether the claim term “substantially ellipsoidal inner profile” means the entire inner profile of the LED lens must be substantially ellipsoidal or only a portion is substantially ellipsoidal. The district court held that the entirety of the lens must be substantially ellipsoidal, and AgiLight’s product did not infringe because it included non-ellipsoidal, conical portions.
The Federal Circuit disagreed, observing that in the only embodiment disclosed in the ’896 Patent (in Figure 7, reproduced below) the bottom half of the lens is not ellipsoidal:
According to the patent, the inner profile 152 of Figure 7 is ellipsoidal. It is undisputed that only a portion of the inner profile 152 (the part above the line at 152) is substantially ellipsoidal. The bottom half of that inner profile (the portion below the line at 152) is not arguably substantially ellipsoidal.
Thus, there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether the AgiLight product includes a “substantially ellipsoidal profile” and summary judgment was improper:
A key claim term at issue with respect to the ’055 Patent was an “annular gasket,” which the district court had interpreted to require an opening in its center that is capable of sealing off its center area.
In the the ’055 Patent, this feature is shown in Figure 4, where the annular gasket 32 surrounds LED 16 before a generally hollow member (not shown) is sealed against the top of the annular gasket to fully enclose the LED.
The court determined that the AgiLight lens (shown below) is not an “annular gasket” because the inner surface lacks an “opening” as required by the court’s interpretation of the term. The Federal Circuit agreed, noting that a concave inner surface cannot be an opening. So GE will get another opportunity to prove infringement of three the four patents asserted against AgiLight.