3 ms·

These are the four patents being asserted, fwiw: 7,781,789, Transparent mirrorless light emitting diode: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7781789B2/en https

by mjn 7y ago

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

makomk 7y ago
Those patents tell an interesting tale, and one not terribly flattering to the University of California. It looks like back in 2006 they invented and patented a variant of the old-fashioned clear domed LED which uses total internal reflection to redirect the light emitted from the rear of the LED out the front, rather than the reflective metal anvil they usually use. This is obviously not a filament LED. The only thing it has in common is that some filament LEDs put the dies on a transparent substrate, though for the purpose of emitting light out the backside of the filament rather than the front. However, they managed to get a set of claims in the '789 patent so broad that it covered all constructions that emit light out the backside of the LED. (The other three patents were filed after filament LEDs became widespread, claiming priority to earlier patents.)
baybal2 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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

by mjn 7y ago

makomk 7y ago

Those patents tell an interesting tale, and one not terribly flattering to the University of California. It looks like back in 2006 they invented and patented a variant of the old-fashioned clear domed LED which uses total internal reflection to redirect the light emitted from the rear of the LED out the front, rather than the reflective metal anvil they usually use. This is obviously not a filament LED. The only thing it has in common is that some filament LEDs put the dies on a transparent substrate, though for the purpose of emitting light out the backside of the filament rather than the front. However, they managed to get a set of claims in the '789 patent so broad that it covered all constructions that emit light out the backside of the LED. (The other three patents were filed after filament LEDs became widespread, claiming priority to earlier patents.)

baybal2 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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