
Amazon, Walmart, Ikea targeted in University of California light bulb lawsuits - hhs
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-retailers-university-of-california-la/amazon-walmart-ikea-targeted-in-university-of-california-light-bulb-lawsuits-idUSKCN1UP24S
======
nkurz
The linked article omits one of the more interesting details, which is that
the suit is being funded by a Longford Capital, a private investment company
that specializes in funding commercial lawsuits. Usually, third parties are
silent about their participation in such suits, but in this case Longford has
publicly announced their backing:
[https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190730005899/en/Lon...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190730005899/en/Longford-
Capital-Funds-Patent-Enforcement-Campaign-University)

Separately, if you haven't tried filament LED bulbs, you should. They are a
wonderfully simple design: stack lots of small LED's in string so that they
can be run at full wall voltage. The lack of a voltage converter means that
there are fewer parts to fail, and the long string of LED's makes heat
dissipation a lot easier. I find them better than all the alternatives.

~~~
zaarn
The lack of a voltage regulator is quite bad; LEDs reduce their internal
resistance as they get hotter, causing them to increase thermal output.

That feedback loop, if not controlled for in some way, can easily destroy the
lamp.

You also still need a DC converter unless you prefer a 50Hz hum in your LEDs
(which sucks).

~~~
robomartin
Not sure what you mean. LED’s don’t have internal resistance. Can you ckarify?

~~~
zaarn
LEDs have an internal resistance, they're not superconductors.

When you switch them on, they have a specific value on that resistance. Due to
their internals, as they heat up, this resistance goes down, causing current
and thermal output to go up.

~~~
robomartin
They have something that is sometimes referred to as "dynamic resistance",
which is the inverse of the slope of the forward portion of the V-I curve, and
yes, it's mostly constant (at constant temperature).

For example, a typical lighting class LED will have a dynamic resistance in
the order of 0.2 to 0.3 ohms. However, in as much as this varies a bit with
temperature the change is mostly negligible.

I am also not sure about your assertion that this dynamic resistance decreases
with temperature. I took a few minutes to review the datasheets of a dozen
OSRAM and Seoul Semiconductor 1W class LED's we use. In all cases the slope of
the V-I curve increases slightly with temperature, which means the dynamic
resistance decreases slightly with an increase in temperature.

Can you explain the effect you are referring to in greater detail? Always
interested in learning something new.

Thanks.

~~~
zaarn
Dynamic and internal resistance probably mean different things, afaict, but
essentially the internal resistance of an LED is a function of it's
temperature. An exponential function in fact; the internal resistance of an
LED is an exponential function with the temperature as the inverse in the
exponent.

Your dynamic slope would also be sufficient to get runaway meltdown.

Essentially, imagine it like this;

The LED has a starting temperature of 20°C and no power applied. When the
appropriate voltage is applied, the LED heats up to 40°C. The dynamic
resistance has a small slope, so as a result the dynamic and internal
resistance both decrease. The current increases, the voltage is the same, the
power output of the package goes up.

The LED now heats to 45°C. The process repeats but because the internal
resistance is exponentially inverse related to temperature, it speeds up. The
LED is now 55°C.

It repeats again and the LED reaches 75°C. Resistance drops again at the
higher temperature, the current increases more. 115°C. At the next step the
LED will reach 195°C, due to the exponential increase and likely the solder
points will liquify. If the LED still works it'll hopefully melt itself from
the PCB before it catches fire.

This can happen incredibly fast, you can counteract it by running the LED well
below maximum spec but then you're one power surge or heat surge away from
meltdown.

Similar to burning wood, the LED's meltdown requires a sufficient amount of
extra heat to trigger, otherwise the exponential heat output is too small and
is dissipated.

This is why you need a current controller or atleast limiter so that the LED
cannot pull more current than it's designed for.

0:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49586062_Internal_R...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49586062_Internal_Resistance_of_an_LED_as_a_function_of_Temperature)

~~~
robomartin
Thanks, I’ll dig further and talk to the LED applications engineers to see
what they have to say. I can’t find anything other than dynamic resistance in
the datasheets or manufacturer application notes.

------
mjn
These are the four patents being asserted, fwiw:

7,781,789, Transparent mirrorless light emitting diode:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US7781789B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7781789B2/en)

9,240,529, Textured phosphor conversion layer light emitting diode:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9240529B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9240529B2/en)

9,859,464, Lighting emitting diode with light extracted from front and back
sides of a lead frame:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9859464B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9859464B2/en)

10,217,916, Transparent light emitting diodes:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10217916B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10217916B2/en)

Patent numbers found in the PDF of one of the complaints (the one against
Walmart) linked elsewhere in this discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20571853](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20571853)

~~~
baybal2
I can't put something more concrete, but I do remember strong prior art case
going back a decade.

> 7,781,789

They claim inventing... a lens? A lens with transparent conductors is still a
lens

> 9,240,529

A claim of "shaped" optical element being used with a phosphor. Again,
borderline cretinical wording

> 9,859,464

Somewhat inventive per se, but wording basically wants to cover all cases of
getting light from all sides of an LED, and not a particular implementation.

"We claim a way to get light from all 6 sides of an LED, but we will not say
what it is"

> 10,217,916

... basically a claim on inventing a sapphire LED, which they had nothing to
do with. Again, a bare claim

Pains to see those guys got Shuji Nakamura on board just to pump troll
patents.

~~~
bdowling
If you're criticizing the title of the patent or the general field of the
invention, then you're missing the point. The scope of the patent is
determined by the claims at the end. Those claims are drafted narrowly and
only claim what is novel and non-obvious over the prior art, because if they
were not then the examiner would not allow the patent. If the claims are non-
novel or obvious, then the defendants will quickly challenge the validity of
the patents and the case will be over.

~~~
baybal2
I know that better than most of the lot here. Your trust into expertise of
patent examiners is misplaced.

I see not a single thing specific in their claims describing a design or
manufacturing process for that device which would allow me to make it.

For example, use of a "transparent conductor" connecting things is not a
design decision, nor an invention just like using wires to connect
electricity. No this not an invention.

~~~
bdowling
A patent does not need to teach you or any other actual person how to make and
practice the invention. It only needs to teach the hypothetical "person having
ordinary skill in the art" how to make or practice the invention. See, e.g.,
MPEP 2163.02 [0] and MPEP 2164 [1].

[0]
[https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2163_02.html](https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2163_02.html)
[1]
[https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2164.html](https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2164.html)

------
dheera
"the litigation is the first-of-its-kind \"direct patent enforcement\"
campaign against an entire industry"

Not the first time. Forgent sued a bunch of companies over the use of JPEG
[0].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG)

~~~
ineedasername
And they're not really suing the appropriate industry. Retailers are not
infringing the patent. This seems troll-ish. When Apple sued Samsung, they
sued Samsung. They didn't sue Verizon, AT&T, etc., that were selling the
products.

~~~
throwaway3627
It's a different situation. Samsung is a big company, whereas the lightbulb
vendors are fly-by-night resellers/contract manufacturers that don't care
about patents. The patent holder goes after the biggest fish because Target is
less likely to disappear than JKLM Filament Light Bulb Importing Ltd.

~~~
ineedasername
It seems the statute disagrees with me, but it seems wrong to sue the
retailer. Sort of like safe-harbor provisions for copyright violations. I
don't think it's practical to expect retailers to vet the functionality of an
item against active patents and then audit the wholesaler's patent license
portfolio for compliance. More practical would be a takedown system where the
patent holder could notify the retailer of infringement, and the wholesaler
would have the opportunity to respond, again like how things are handled with
copyright. (Not that the process there is without flaws)

------
earthcreed
You can also read the actual press release from UCSB, instead of reuters'
regurgitation of it.

[https://filamentpatent.ucsb.edu/](https://filamentpatent.ucsb.edu/)

~~~
sfifs
Why would a PR release be any more reliable than a news article? At least
mainstream news articles try to maintain the appearance of being unbiased :-)

~~~
earthcreed
The news story is just the PR release restated. There is no reporting going
on. They even repeated the arguably false statement that this is "the first of
its kind", leaving off the one part of the statement that might make it true
"by a university".

That was the point of my comment, and I included the link so you could look at
both.

------
yeutterg
Related: Signify (formerly Philips Lighting) recently lost a judgment by the
U.S. International Trade Commission on their patent licensing program [0].
Lighting companies that have fought patent infringement claims against
Philips/Signify and similar entities have often won but at a high cost [1].
Many others are intimidated into licensing, or they go out of business.

My understanding is that lot of it boils down to the patents being relatively
vague or overly broad coupled with overly aggressive enforcement.

[0] (NOTE: PDF) Signify Loses at the U.S. International Trade Commission in
Setback to its LED Patent Enforcement Campaign [https://edisonreport.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/ITCSigni...](https://edisonreport.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/ITCSigni444.pdf)

[1] Great analysis of the toll Philips' licensing program has on the industry
by WAC Lighting, which has fought infringement claims: W.A.C. Issues Strong
Response to Philips ITC Complaint [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wac-issues-
strong-response-ph...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wac-issues-strong-
response-philips-itc-complaint-randy-reid)

------
bertm
Found the complaint in PACER if anyone is interested in reading.

[https://www.scribd.com/document/420311557/Complaint-19-06570](https://www.scribd.com/document/420311557/Complaint-19-06570)

------
dahdum
I'd love to see a patent lawyers view of this case. On the face it looks
insane to expect retailers to individually weigh patent claims and somehow
force suppliers into licensing agreements with third parties.

~~~
earthcreed
You don't need a patent lawyer, just read 35 U.S. Code § 271. " . . . whoever
without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any
patented invention during the term of the the patent therefor, infringes the
patents.

Amazon, Walmart, etc. aren't likely the ultimate targets of the suit. The
suits are designed to bring in the producers under the indemnity portion of
their contract with the retailer. Its a jurisdictional hook and way to
effectively multiply the amount of pressure on the actual infringer, by
threatening to cut off their access to the retailer (which could be
accomplished in the ITC) and leverage possible contractual damages they face
from the retailer. The ultimate goal is to pressure Everlight, Eaton, and
whoever else is making the light bulbs to pay for a license, and using Amazon
and Walmart to force them to do so.

~~~
Shivetya
this really looks like they are truly after these five large retailers because
they probably cannot affect the manufacturers of the products. so in effect a
retailer simply should be able to discontinue selling the product but from the
press release that is not the goal of the suit. They clearly state they want
products using the technology sold but they want to put the onus on the
retailer.

to be blunt it is because these retailers have the means to pass on this fee
and not necessarily just by individual product sales.

~~~
delfinom
The retailers have their own store brand filament led bulbs, this alone makes
them bigger targets as they are electing to manufacture bulbs with their own
branding on them.

------
digikata
"According to the university’s lawyers at Nixon Peabody, the litigation is the
first-of-its-kind 'direct patent enforcement' campaign against an entire
industry."

Didn't the CSIRO from Australia do something similar with respect to their
wifi patents?

------
gumby
I'm pretty sure UCB isn't producing and selling light bulbs, so as a classic
NPE (non practicing entity) they are in the eyes of the law nothing but a
patent troll.

Not that that may help much.

~~~
delfinom
Yes but the ability for a university to patent a technology is to fund future
research off royalties. NPEs aren't automatically trolls but rather trolls are
NPEs.

~~~
autokad
I have concerns of universities and patents. I am leaning towards 'if you want
to hold patents and be a non-profit, then all patents must be free use'. I
could be convinced otherwise

~~~
tomnipotent
> I could be convinced otherwise

Besides the fact that innovation needs to be funded? These things don't happen
in a bubble, and financial reward has historically proven to be the greatest
driver of innovation.

~~~
manquer
what if it is funded by grants and tax payer money ?

~~~
delfinom
There's nowhere near as much grants out there as people think. And tax payer
money subsidizes but doesn't cover all the costs in many universities.

------
anilakar
What's the patent being infringed? Surely "low-voltage components in series
with their combined maximum rating above the mains voltage" by itself can't be
patent-worthy, so there should be something more specific being infringed.

~~~
michaelt
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US7781789/](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7781789/)
"a light emitting diode (LED) that emits light out of the LED from multiple
sides of the LED, wherein all layers of the LED are transparent for an
emission wavelength except for an emitting layer."

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9240529/](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9240529/)
"an LED chip emitting light at a first wavelength, wherein the emitted light
is extracted from both front and back sides of the LED chip; a lead frame to
which the LED chip is attached, wherein the LED chip resides on or above a
transparent plate in the lead frame that allows the emitted light to be
extracted out of the LED chip through the transparent plate in the lead frame;
and a phosphor for converting the light emitted by the LED chip at the first
wavelength to a second wavelength."

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US9859464/](https://patents.google.com/patent/US9859464/)
"A light emitting device, comprising: a lead frame including a transparent
plate; and an LED chip, attached to the lead frame, for emitting light;
wherein the LED chip resides on or above the transparent plate and at least
some of the light emitted by the LED chip is transmitted through the
transparent plate; and wherein at least a portion of the light emitted by the
LED chip is extracted from a front side of the lead frame and another portion
of the light emitted by the LED chip is extracted from a back side of the lead
frame."

[https://patents.google.com/patent/US10217916/](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10217916/)
"A light emitting device, comprising: a lead frame having a transparent plate
therein; and a light emitting diode (LED) chip, mounted on the lead frame and
placed on or above the transparent plate in the lead frame, emitting light
through at least front and back sides of the LED chip; wherein the transparent
plate in the lead frame allows the light emitted from the LED chip to be
extracted out of the LED chip from the front or back sides of the LED chip and
through the transparent plate in the lead frame."

------
01100011
This sounds like a garbage patent. People have been stacking LEDs in series
since they were invented. They put them on a single, transparent substrate.
Big deal, seems obvious to me. Is there something special they developed, like
a nifty manufacturing technique or previously unused materials?

~~~
egdod
How do you know it sounds like garbage if you haven’t even looked at it?

~~~
mmazing
How do you know that they didn't look at it?

~~~
egdod
> Is there something special they developed, like a nifty manufacturing
> technique or previously unused materials?

Because they wouldn’t be asking that question.

------
elliekelly
How long until Bezos wakes up and starts doing _something_ to curate/monitor
third-party retail products even a little? I know most of their customers
don't care about patent infringement but this case is just a byproduct of
Amazon's unwillingness to address the problem third-party sellers have become.

~~~
IG_Semmelweiss
Right now the killer online is:

"Buy from us, we dont sell cheap knockoffs"

However no one can bring amazon to task, since all the other ones (walmart
target etc) are also moving in the same direction...hopelessly trying to catch
up with amazon

------
el_don_almighty
good, somebody should sue these people for making bulbs that give people
headaches!!!

------
userbinator
I feel like filament LED bulbs were invented in China, or at least that's
where I saw them (and LED lighting in general) used far more widely first.

Relatedly, the bigclivedotcom YouTube channel has a _huge_ collection of
detailed analysis of various types of LED lighting.

~~~
makomk
I'm pretty sure filament LED bulbs _were_ invented in China - and patented by
their Chinese inventors at the time too. The University of California seem to
be suing using broad, trollish patents on things like omitting the rear
reflector and allowing LED dies to emit light in all directions. Also, most of
the patents were filed _after_ LED filaments became widespread on the market
using tricks with patent priority. (The other odd thing is that a lot of LED
filaments don't do this - they have a rear reflective metal strip that forms
the main structure of the filament.)

~~~
bdowling
> tricks with patent priority.

It's not a trick because in order to assert priority based on a prior
application, the invention claimed needs to be completely supported by the
prior disclosure. In fact, an applicant will often claim less than what they
can in a first application, for a variety of reasons.

