Radulescu LLP is second to none when it comes to dealing with Philips Lighting (now Signify) in connection with its “EnabLED” LED Luminaire and Retrofit Bulb Patent Licensing Program. We relentlessly and efficiently represent our clients’ interests armed with deep knowledge and vast experience with the EnabLED Licensing Program. Radulescu LLP has technical expertise and knows the LED industry, the technology, the patents, the key players, and the arguments like no other law firm.
Our vigorous representation of numerous clients involving the EnabLED Licensing Program includes both negotiation with and litigation against Philips/Signify. We have achieved favorable results and defended clients in a number of forums, including: Federal District Courts across the US; the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in DC; the International Trade Commission (“ITC”); and the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Radulescu LLP’s experience and results are unmatched.
Negotiating a First License or Advising Re: Renewal or Non-Renewal of an Existing License
We have represented numerous lighting companies both large and small in confidential negotiations with Philips/Signify. Whether we are across the table from Philips or working behind the scenes, we understand the LED lighting industry and are always able to identify a client’s negotiation strengths while exposing Philips’ weaknesses, with favorable results.
If Philips/Signify has approached your company demanding a license to its EnabLED patent portfolio, you want to get the best possible result. With Radulescu LLP on your side, your company can leverage the considerable knowledge and experience that we bring to bear and be comfortable you have the most effective counsel guiding your business resolution.
Achieving Favorable Results in Courts Across the Country
Philips/Signify has asserted patents in its EnabLED Licensing Program in U.S. Courts and at the ITC numerous times. Radulescu LLP has been involved in many of these litigations, including:
Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Lighting N. Am. Corp. v. Wangs Alliance Corp. d/b/a WAC Lighting Co., 14-cv-12298-DJC (D. Mass.). The following U.S. patents were asserted by Philips Lighting: 6,013,988; 6,147,458; 6,250,774; 6,561,690; 6,586,890; 6,788,011; 7,038,399; 7,256,554, 7,352,138 and 7,737,643. Engaged by WAC Lighting to replace defense counsel a year into the case and after claim construction briefing was completed. Achieved successful resolution after important strategic wins, including: achieved institution of IPRs on 6 out of 7 Petitions for invalidity filed before the USPTO; prevailed on a related motion to stay the District Court proceedings pending IPRs; succeeded on preventing damages discovery before case was settled; prevailed on a rare decision limiting the scope of IPR estoppel of invalidity to only those grounds raised in WAC Lighting’s Petitions, thus allowing WAC to maintain most of its prior art invalidity defenses for trial and increasing pressure on Philips.
Philips Lighting Holding B.V. v. Howard Indus., Inc. d/b/a Howard Lighting, 2:18-cv-12-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.). Philips asserted the following five U.S. patents: 6,250,774; 6,577,512; 6,586,890; 7,262,559; and 8,063,577. Represented Howard Lighting. Achieved successful resolution via important strategic considerations. Along with an answer to the Complaint, we filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in connection with the ‘774 patent (where we argued no pre-suit damages). We prevailed on that motion, which forced Philips’ patent claims to be limited to LED drivers and not the overall LED lighting products. This positioned Howard to be able to argue, based on the compelling weight of the law, that any royalty base must be tied only to the cost of the LED drivers and not the overall products, substantially reducing the exposure of our client.
In re Certain LED Lighting Devices, LED Power Supplies, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1081 (ITC). Philips asserted the following three patents against client WAC Lighting in an ITC investigation against seven respondents: 6,586,890; 7,038,399; 7,256,554. Achieved successful resolution after several important strategic wins. Philips attempted to assert an additional patent against WAC Lighting, a motion which we defeated based on the prevailing law (which Philips ignored). We also obtained several favorable claim constructions and presented strong invalidity positions leading to Philips’ withdrawal of certain claims and the ‘890 patent—which had been asserted in many cases by Philips—in its entirety.
Winning at the PTAB to Invalidate Philips’ Patent Claims
Winning at the Federal Circuit
Finding itself on the receiving end of our successful PTAB results, Philips appealed the invalidation of claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,988 (“the ‘988 patent”) and 6,561,690 (“the ‘690 patent”) to the appellate court for all patent matters, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Once again, we successfully argued against Philips, with the Federal Circuit completely affirming the PTAB’s decisions that claims of the ‘988 patent and ‘690 patent were unpatentable.
Deep Knowledge of Philips’ Patents Across Market Segments
Over the last several years, we have substantial and unmatched expertise with hundreds of Philips LED patents. Our experience spans the gamut of LED patents in the following market segments: LED bulbs, electronic/driver circuitry, outdoor luminaires, parking and street lights, indoor lights, industrial lighting, and horticultural lighting. We have also unmatched experience in virtually every single Philips patent asserted in litigation over the years, including the following U.S. patents:
6,013,988 6,586,890 7,352,138
6,147,458 6,788,011 7,358,679
6,250,774 7,038,399 7,737,643
6,561,690 7,178,941 8,063,577
6,577,512 7,256,554 8,070,328
We are the best-positioned law firm in the industry to advise LED lighting companies facing allegations of infringement from Philips/Signify.
Venture Capital Transactions or Corporate Acquisitions
In recent years, the lighting industry has experienced consolidation and restructuring to assist companies in growth or put capital to work. Accordingly, we have been engaged in numerous settings to counsel one side or another in evaluating the IP landscape, including ramifications of the EnabLED Licensing Program. Sometimes the IP landscape is critical to a deal, and we are the firm responsible for identifying issues, pitfalls, and other potential problems. Our advice has led clients to both close advantageous deals and to avoid disadvantageous deals; without this advice, our clients may have missed these opportunities and mishaps. Whether you are acquiring a company or being acquired, or simply making a substantial investment in an LED lighting business, we have unmatched expertise to bring to the table.