IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed Cir.: New trial ordered over patents for lighting tubes after $27M judgment, (Jul 28, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The district court erred by preventing the alleged patent infringer from presenting evidence of patent invalidity and the on-sale bar.

Concluding that the federal district court in Waco, Texas erred in rulings concerning the validity of two patents for lighting tubes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has vacated a judgment of approximately $27 million and ordered a new jury trial. The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred by preventing three Chinese tube lighting manufacturers from presenting evidence of patent invalidity. The district improperly excluded relevant expert testimony in support of the on-sale bar and the Federal Circuit held that the jury should decide whether to credit the expert’s testimony. The Federal Circuit held that a new trial is required concerning the validity of the two lighting patents and damages for all three patents (Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025)).

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co, Ltd. and Obert, Inc. (collectively, Super Lighting) own three patents: U.S. Patents Nos. 10,295,125 (the ’125 Patent), 10,352,540 (the ’540 Patent), and 9,939,140 (the ’140 Patent”). The three patents are directed to light emitting diode (LED) tube lamps. Super Lighting brought suit for infringement against a competitor in the LED tube lamp industry, CH Lighting Technology Co, Ltd., and Shaoxing Ruising Lighting Co, Ltd. (collectively, CH Lighting). The trial judge granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Super Lighting on the issue of validity of the ’125 patent. After a four-day jury trial, the jury found CH Lighting had willfully infringed the three asserted patents and that the patents are valid. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $13,872,872 from CH and Ruising and $298,454 from Elliott, and further found that both companies willfully infringed. After the verdict, the court denied CH Lighting’s post-trial motions and granted Super Lighting’s motion for enhanced damages, doubling the jury’s damages verdict. CH Lighting appealed.

Validity of tube patents. The Federal Circuit ruled that the district court erred in Deciding the validity of the tube patents, the ’125 and ’540 Patents. Under the on-sale bar provision, a person shall be entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention was on sale before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The district court excluded evidence offered by CH Lighting to show that three LED tube lamp products were on sale before the effective filing dates of the tube patents. Nonetheless, CH Lighting’s invalidity expert testified that the prior art tubes embodied the tube patents’ claims and were on sale before the tube patents’ effective filing dates. On their face, the Federal Circuit found the documents appear to be offers for sale, disclosing the lighting tube’s specifications and providing ordering codes. CH Lighting’s expert relied on the documents in his expert report in support of his finding that the lighting tube was on sale prior to the tube patents’ effective filing dates. This evidence supports the on-sale bar, the panel found.

The appeals court held that the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law that the ’125 and ’540 Patents were not invalid. The district erroneously prevented CH Lighting from presenting evidence of patent invalidity. The Federal Circuit held that for the jury to determine whether to credit the expert’s testimony. Accordingly, the appeals court held that a new trial is needed to determine validity of the ’125 and ’540 Patents

The ’140 Patent. The Federal Circuit held, however, that substantial evidence supports the validity of the ’140 Patent and infringement. Based on expert testimony, the jury verdict of no invalidity based on anticipation is supported by substantial evidence. The jury also had substantial evidence to find infringement of the ’140 Patent.

New trial on damages. Having reversed the district court’s determination on validity of the patents and ordering a new trial, a new trial on damages is also needed because the jury rendered a single verdict on damages, without breaking down the damages. On remand, the Federal Circuit instructed the trial court to consider whether the patent holder and its expert properly apportioned damages. In the context of patent damages, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly explained that the damages expert must apportion among licenses. The panel observed that CH Lighting might consider filing a motion to exclude the expert witness on damages.

The Case is No. 23-1715.

Judge: Dyk, T.

Attorneys: Matthew Cook Bernstein (Perkins Coie LLP) for Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd. and Obert, Inc. Jeffrey A. Lamken (MoloLamken LLP) for CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Elliott Electric Supply, Inc., and Shaoxing Ruising Lighting Co, Ltd.

Companies: Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd.; Obert, Inc.; CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.; Elliott Electric Supply, Inc.; Shaoxing Ruising Lighting Co, Ltd.

MainStory: TopStory Patent TexasNews FedCirNews