Court Awards iLight Technologies Over $5 Million in Damages & Denies Retrial Request of Patent Lawsuit

[Erik Sine]

Court Awards iLight Technologies Over $5 Million in Damages & Denies Retrial Request of Patent Lawsuit

CHICAGO, Sept. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- iLight Technologies, Inc. (www.ilight-tech.com), a leader in innovative LED lighting solutions, is pleased to announce the District Court has recently issued rulings that confirm iLight's victory in its patent infringement litigation against Fallon Luminous Products Corporation, a Knoxville, TN sign company. The Court rejected Fallon's motion for a new trial, and increased the total amount awarded to iLight to over five million dollars.

Earlier this year a jury in Federal Court unanimously found that Fallon infringed iLight's patents on its proprietary technology of using LEDs to simulate cold cathode or neon lighting. After the verdict, the Court entered an injunction prohibiting Fallon and all acting in concert with Fallon from any further manufacture, importation, use, or sale of the infringing LED products. Fallon subsequently filed a motion to stay the injunction, a motion to stay the enforcement of judgment, a motion for judgment as a matter of law, and a motion for new trial. The District Court denied all of Fallon's motions.

Fallon also filed an emergency motion with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requesting a stay of the injunction. The Court of Appeals rejected Fallon's motion noting, among other things, that Fallon has not met the burden of showing that any appeal by Fallon is likely to succeed. Sean Callahan, President & CEO of iLight Technologies, said, "We couldn't be more pleased by the outcome. The uniqueness and importance of our patented technology has been established by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and has been confirmed by the jury and the trial judge in the Fallon case, and now judges in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have told Fallon that an appeal by Fallon is not likely to succeed."

iLight filed a motion to have the case declared exceptional and for an award of attorneys fees. On September 9, the District Court granted this motion bringing the total amount awarded to iLight to in excess of five million dollars.

iLight invented what the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the jury found to be a unique manner of using LED technology to simulate cold cathode and neon lighting. This patented technology offers customers an illuminated product that incorporates both the benefits of LEDs (durability, low energy use, long life, etc.) with a visually striking appearance. Callahan added, "With more than 50 patents governing this unique technology, it is difficult for us to imagine an LED product of high quality that offers very desirable, bright, and even illumination similar to cold cathode or neon without using iLight's proprietary technology."

About iLight Technologies, Inc.

iLight Technologies, Inc. is a leader in innovative LED illumination solutions that transform, excite, and energize corporate identities and architectural environments worldwide. iLight's award-winning products blend the benefits of LEDs with patented application systems that create lighting products that offer high brightness with a smooth, even glow. The company has more than ninety patents covering its Plexineon technologies and other LED lighting systems. iLight Technologies was founded in 2000, is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and has manufacturing facilities in Cookeville, Tennessee.

[signeye]

I wonder what this means for other LED boarder tube producers, is neoneon now out of luck or at risk for importing thier products...The old ilight was cool but delaminated in the cold weather. I know they fixed that but I wonder what other patents will affect all the other guys? Manuel, I know you said you would never get into that part of the buisness again, nor would I, but do you have a reaction?

Edited October 1, 2009 by signeye

[YYZ]

ilght may have the patent, but if a company can prove that they had their own version prior, or prior art as it were, then ilight would avoid butting heads with them for fear it would publicly invalidate what they have.

You don't have to be the first one to to make something to be the patent holder, just the first one to file the patent and from my recollection, neo-neon had similar stuff out prior to ilight (neon-flex). Also - it's been a while since I looked - but I don't think ilight's patents delve to far into the Sloan/TetraBT territory where the LEDs are in hollow, colored tubes. They have more to do with embedding directly into materials that both encapsulate and diffuse at the same time.

[signeye]

Also - it's been a while since I looked - but I don't think ilight's patents delve to far into the Sloan/TetraBT territory where the LEDs are in hollow, colored tubes. They have more to do with embedding directly into materials that both encapsulate and diffuse at the same time.

This is what I was curious about and I see your point. You just never know anymore how patent law is going to evolve in LEDs. Sooooooooo many people have LED patents on questionable things, it will make for entrtaining viewing from the balcony for sure. Thanks for the chime in Marko.

[Brian]

seems like all you hear now is one LED co. suing another over patent issues ... like a bunch of vultures!!!!

[imanut]

seems like all you hear now is one LED co. suing another over patent issues ... like a bunch of vultures!!!!

I wonder if that are the signs that Price Club and Sam's Club sell -------- oh well. Back to neon "open" signs!!

gn

[YYZ]

... like a bunch of vultures!!!!

No - that would be the lawyers.

[fishing nut]

will they have to replace all the existing signs in the field before they recall them? I bet budwieser and the other vendors arent to happy.