IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Ohio: Dismissal granted in light-emitting diode dispute, (May 13, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for infringement were dismissed because they were conclusory and lacked allegations of specific facts which would show infringement.

A seller of light emitting diodes failed to plausibly allege patent infringement by a competitor’s light bulb product, the U.S. District Court in Cleveland has held. The complaint lacked specific factual allegations and included images that were purportedly of the accused product, but which lacked source information or explanation of how they showed infringement (Lexington Luminance LLC v. Technical Consumer Products, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-02235-DAR (N.D. Ohio May. 9, 2025)).

Lexington Luminance, LLC (Lexington) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,936,851 B2 and C1 (the ’851 patent), which claimed improvements to light-emitting diodes in the form of a solution to “lattice mismatch,” a problem in the prior art where the active layer of the diode and the substrate it was attached to would suffer strain and thereby suffer defects and premature degradation. Lexington brought suit for infringement against Technical Consumer Products, Inc. (Technical), alleging that Technical’s TCP LT815AB50K T8 15W 4 Ft Type AB Tube 1800 Lm 5000K product infringed the ’851 patent and accusing Technical of direct, induced, and willful infringement. Technical moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Direct infringement. The court found that complaint was difficult to understand, noting that it included grey-scale images allegedly representing the accused product which lacked source information, one of which the court described as simply a light grey box on a dark grey background with the box labeled “substrate.” Finding that there was no factual support for what exactly these images represented or how they showed infringement, and that allegations about specific compounds used in the accused product contained unexplained abbreviations such as “EDX” and “SEM” which the court did not understand, the court held that Lexington had failed to plausibly allege direct infringement and had, at best, simply recited the elements of infringement alongside conclusory statements that the accused product infringed.

Induced and willful infringement. The court explained that claims for induced and willful infringement required an act of direct infringement, so Lexington’s failure to plausibly plead direct infringement was fatal to its induced and willful infringement claims.

The court granted the motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 5:22-cv-02235-DAR.

Judge: Ruiz, D.

Attorneys: Howard L. Wernow (Sebolt & Wernow Co.) for Lexington Luminance LLC. David B. Cupar (McDonald Hopkins LLC) for Technical Consumer Products, Inc.

Companies: Lexington Luminance LLC; Technical Consumer Products, Inc.

Cases: Patent OhioNews