Litepanels sues to stop all imports of LED Lighting!

Its a combination of persistence and the USPTO that obviously is going way beyond their bounds in issuing some patents that should never be issued. No question about it. It allows people like this, after the fact, to be predators and intimidate competition with lawyers, courts, ITC hearings, etc. Ask Gekko, Swit and some others that have been sued by these people what they think of the patents and if they are valid. Those companies lived through the experience, we will too.

An LED itself is an innovation and should be patentable. Putting LEDs on a PCB and using well known methods to drive them is not an innovation but a normal and obvious use for an LED. A patent is valid if its "not obvious to someone skilled in the art". That means someone that knows all the disciplines involved to make a similar product. It means someone that can understand how LEDs work, conceive that they are better off in large arrays to make them usable as the lighting they were meant to be, buy them, take any number of driver methods available, design and debug, and finally package it all in finished and usable product. That is not innovation, that is simply a use for the real innovation which was the LED itself. The patent office should not be granting patents for an obvious and normal use of something so ubiquitous as a light bulb or an LED for that matter. You might as well allow KFC to patent the rights to frying all chickens in the world and everyone else needs to license that from them...
 
Norman99 said:
Hmm.. I see that Sony was taken to court a while ago... This is getting verrrry interesting !
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/5/8/2
Click to expand...

LOL, have you guys seen that "patent"? It´s pathetic.

Abstract
A lighting effects system comprises an arrangement of lamp elements, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs) or other light elements, on a panel or frame. The panel or frame may be relatively lightweight, and may include one or more circuit boards for direct mounting of the lamp elements. The panel or frame may have an opening through which a camera can view. A mounting bracket and assembly may be used for attaching the panel or frame to a camera. The lamp elements may be electronically controllable so as to provide differing intensity levels, collectively, individually, or in designated groups, and may be strobed, dimmed or otherwise controlled according to manually selected or programmable patterns. Different color lamp elements may be mounted on the same panel/frame, and, in particular, daylight and tungsten colored lamp elements may be mounted on the same panel/frame and their relative intensities selectively controlled by control circuitry.
Click to expand...

This - so called - patent was issued in September 27, 2005! At this time, I already had at least 3 LED panels from 3 different Chinese companies.

So what completely retard schmuck is granting such a "patent"?
Is this just plain douchebageness or does this need some money transfer to accounts in Switzerland ?
At this "patent office" I could probably having a patent on candle sticks any day.

This is gonna back lash big time on Vitec, or as we say in Germany "Boomerang Effect".
At least my company will avoid Vitec Products like the plaque in the future.


Funny side note: have you seen the advertising on the left side of the article?

LED.jpg


Frank
 
Last edited:
that could also indicate that the company is just going bankrupt and this is the last shot to make some easy money (imagine, no need to produce anything, just a bunch of lawyers to collect patent fee, the dream of all top manager, no plant , no workers, no salaray, no products to buy, no charges, pure revenues...).
 
I'm not sure which patent that one was. Here are excerpts from 7,318,652 one of the most recent ones granted in Jan 2008.

1. A lighting system suitable to provide proper illumination for lighting of a subject in film or video, comprising: a portable frame having a panel including a mounting surface; a plurality of semiconductor light elements disposed on said mounting surface, said semiconductor light elements emitting light within a color temperature range suitable for image capture, at least one of said semiconductor light elements emitting light in a daylight or tungsten color temperature range; and a focusing element for adjusting the focus and/or direction of the light emitted by said semiconductor light elements; wherein said portable frame is adapted for being mounted to and readily disengaged from a stand.

7. The lighting system of claim 1, wherein said portable frame further comprises a stand adapter bracket configured to be mounted to and readily disengaged from said stand.

8. The lighting system of claim 7, wherein said stand adapter bracket comprises a yoke, and wherein said portable frame is configured to swivel and/or tilt when mounted to said yoke.

9. The lighting system of claim 8, wherein said yoke is substantially C-shaped, said portable frame being mounted between two arms of the yoke such that the portable frame may be tilted and locked into position at different angles.

10. The lighting system of claim 7, wherein said stand adapter bracket comprises a ball-and-socket mechanism, and wherein said portable frame is configured to swivel and/or tilt to said ball-and-socket mechanism.

22. The lighting system of claim 1, further comprising an intensity control circuit in electrical communication with the semiconductor light elements, for adjusting the intensity of light output by the semiconductor light elements.

23. The lighting system of claim 22, wherein the illumination level of said semiconductor light elements is controlled using pulse width modulation.

You would think they invented yokes, stand adapters and dimming using PWM.
 
They didn't invent anything. It is just using a play on words that uses existing old technology and putting all the elements together ( leds that they didn't invent, yokes that they didn't invent, rectangular frames that they didn't invent and I'm not talking about picture frames or eyeglass type, led electronics whether PWM or constant current/voltage drivers that they didn't invent or have a patent to those, switch types of toggle/rocker or slider that they didn't invent, led lenses or reflectors that are fitted/encapsulated over the leds that they did not invent, etc. etc. All those items were already invented and available before the fact.They just had a design/drafting team that took existing technology items and putting/fitting them to a nice looking frame added some serious marketing and advertising dollars and became the big kahuna of panels, at least for a while. Sales most likely plummeted due to stiff competition (no surprise) with cheaper or rather affordable units and are now in the sueing business ( not the garment industry). If a method or idea is patentable, then they did just that, but grouping existing leds/bulbs/torches/flashlights and of course candles together is not a novel idea or method, it's just common sense.
Now that's my 2 cents, for all it's worth.
 
Lets talk about what can be done by the "consumer" side of things.

It is absolutely the case that the reason these patents have never been invalidated in court is the film and video lighting market is relatively small compared to many of the other types of cases heard before the ITC (or even in normal patent court for that matter). Thus any one (or even several small) respondees don't have or can't justify the budget to fight this thing. I saw someone saying it typically takes 5 million dollars in the average patent case to fight and invalidate a bad patent. Its not uncommon to have to spend between 1 and 3 million to fight an ITC action like the one we are dealing with now. So, what generally happens is the case sort of gets to a point where both settle. Litepanels doesn't want it to go much further because they know what will happen and the other side doesn't because they may run out of money. What can be done?

It is absolutely a good thing to write letters, emails, etc. to the US Patent Office. Talking about how the patents in question. Here's a link to the patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...ervices&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT


More immediately though, I recommend everyone contact the US ITC at this website:

http://www.usitc.gov/scripts/contact_us.asp

You can also send letters which I highly recommend over emails to:

U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20436
USA

Contact Phone: 202.205.2000

They are absolutely interested and its going to be question before them how the consumer will be affected because that is one criteria they consider in cases such as this. You and I know that at least 90% of the people buying the more inexpensive panels couldn't or perhaps just wouldn't buy the more expensive panel at least 4 times the price of the more inexpensive one. That is the utter ridiculousness of this whole thing. Litepanels simply cannot meet the demands of the entire market. This is therefore a case of multiple tiers of products and customers, but they don't want multiple tiers, they only want one tier. Imagine if there were only expensive DV cameras, beyond the reach of many that are reading this now. Its debatable that boards such as DVXUser wouldn't even exist because no "indy" market would have ever been created by the availability of lower cost cameras. Imagine if there were only expensive monitors, expensive tripods, and of course expensive lighting. There would be no indy market as we know it today. What if some heavyweights had come in with a patent in the camera area? There wouldn't be a different tier of product nor would the "indy" or "semipro" market have been created. In effect the lower priced products created a market which didn't exist up to that point.

Litepanels has made the decision not to serve the lower tier of customer by continuing to sell only the expensive options. They have had years to rectify this and chose not to rather spending money to fight lower cost competitors--particularly the smaller ones like our company and the others in this ITC investigation. They never attack a competitor that is a heavyweight in lighting for obvious reasons. Thus, it should follow in reasoning that they want you to buy the more expensive panel and are pretty much putting a gun to your head using courts and lawyers to do this by trying to kill all your other options.

I urge you to write today to the USPTO and USITC. Do it with all the urgency you can and with the idea that someone wants to force you into options you may not agree to and that would absolutely be the case if other tiers of product are eliminated. Concentrate in your letters on what will happen if there is only the higher priced option and also concentrate on the fact that Litepanels has not filled this niche of the lower tiered product which for many of you is the only one you consider. There would therefore be a vacuum that would not be filled and a market would be killed that was created by lower priced, "semi-pro" products (just the same as the semi-pro DV cameras have done for the market). Again, Litepanels has shown no interest in serving this market so the consumer would be affected. Talk about that this is a small and specialized market (film and video lighting perhaps maximum $50m worldwide every year, if that much) and the respondents in patent cases such as this simply don't have the funds to fight these patents which many feel should never have been granted on the basis of obviousness to someone skilled in the art.

Those are the main points any communication should have.
 
Last edited:
Patrick, I don't know what to say. I think anyone that knows something about patents is mystified at this point.

Frank, Yes Sony did get sued. A confidential agreement was signed as settlement and thats all we know about it. My take on it is Sony isn't big in lighting at all. I think they just had that one on camera light they got sued over. Whatever the settlement was it was probably Sony not feeling it worth fighting for. Now attack them on cameras and that's quite another thing.
 
So I just claim that I invented candle sticks and than get a patent on it and sue the sh..t out of everybody and his kid brother who sells candles?

Looks like this is the situation here. In what kind of world are we living in?

Frank
 
Yup, persistence, some money, time and looks like you can get just about anything passed now. Atlas shrugged...
 
I can't boycott all the Vitec vendors, but Litepanels is off my shopping list. CL-1200 bi- color is on my xmas wish list.
 
goetzpd said:
LITEPANELS are good quality. They don't break as easy as some knock offs. They have bulbs that don't change color temperature over time. The only thing I dislike more than light brand light is battery brand battery and even more so, charger brand charger. There's stuff out there with no UPC code, warranty, parts availability and some of these companies even have booths at NAB.
Click to expand...


Yeah, great quality and service...not to mention value!

I burned close to $350 on a LP-Micro and it's a piece of sh...It flickers when I adjust the dimmer and getting any kind of warranty service in Canada (Toronto area) is impossible. I was advised by the retailer (Vistek) to send it to California.

Litepanels' Canadian site (http://www.litepanels.ca/) looks like a 12 year old developed it back in 1994..

This light is one of those purchases for which I feel dirty. It's my first and last Litepanels product and the lone fact that they're starting to patent troll ensures that I will never buy anything from them again.
 
David Jimerson said:
Please do not take this down a political road.[/

David, let me respectfully submit the following consideration.

How can a discussion of government granted patents, and the subsequent abuse of that process be anything other than a philosophical or if you will, a political discussion? It's absolutely inherent and central to the topic.

Therein lies the problem. The word "political" is used as an umbrella term, when in fact this is a discussion about morality and right and wrong as it pertains to Vitecs actions.

We'd be better off if we'd stop using the term "politics" instead of discussion of the more fundamental issues. In that regard, This discussion has been a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...
 
hotchkiss said:
David, let me respectfully submit the following consideration.

How can a discussion of government granted patents, and the subsequent abuse of that process be anything other than a philosophical or if you will, a political discussion? It's absolutely inherent and central to the topic.

Therein lies the problem. The word "political" is used as an umbrella term, when in fact this is a discussion about morality and right and wrong as it pertains to Vitecs actions.

Frankly, we'd be better off if we'd stop using the term "politics" instead of discussing the more fundamental issues. In that regard, This discussion has been a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...

Talking about patents doesn't require references to Atlas Shrugged or Galt's Gulch, or other non-specific references to the political process or atmoshphere. And it really isn't even those things being said; I asked that it go no further than that.

We have the rule for a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top