Signify Defends CCT Selection Patent Against Luminex Challenge
In a recent filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Signify Holdings B.V. has presented a detailed response to Luminex International Company Ltd.’s petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,299,336. The patent in question covers a Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) selection switch which is widely used throughout our industry.
NOTE: We believe the document is significantly redacted because of information related to the Menard litigation.
Key Points of the Dispute
The core of the litigation centers on Signify’s assertion that the challenged patent claims—particularly independent claims 13 and 15—are fully supported by their original priority date of 19 February 2016. Signify argues that the petition filed by Luminex mischaracterizes the scope and novelty of their invention while failing to establish the applicability of prior art references.
Luminex’s petition challenges the patent’s validity by citing references such as Chaimberg and Halliwell, arguing that the patent lacks sufficient novelty. However, Signify’s response dismantles these claims by stating that:
- Misinterpretation of Prior Art:
- Luminex’s cited references do not specifically disclose the concept of a CCT selection switch as outlined in the ‘336 patent.
- The references fail to demonstrate key features such as an actuator with discrete CCT positions and a coupling feature that connects the switch to an electrical cable.
- Failure to Establish Priority Claims:
- Signify emphasizes that their patent’s priority date precedes the filing dates of the alleged prior art.
- The design improvements introduced in their continuation-in-part application, such as the placement of the switch remote from the luminaire housing, further differentiate it from prior solutions.
- Technical Advancements in CCT Switching:
- The patent introduces innovative designs for adjusting lighting output without the need for stocking multiple fixtures with varying color temperatures, a significant advantage in cost management and inventory reduction.
Examination of Luminex’s Claims
Signify’s response goes into technical depth, pointing out that Luminex’s expert witnesses failed to accurately interpret the claims of the ‘336 patent, particularly in their identification of key elements such as the switch “body” and the coupling feature. Notably, the response highlights deposition statements in which Luminex’s expert conceded errors in assessing prior art disclosures.
Additionally, Signify argues that Luminex’s challenges regarding the novelty of the technology are based on an incomplete understanding of CCT selection and the practical application of the patented design in real-world lighting solutions.
Industry Implications
This case underscores the increasing importance of CCT selectability in modern lighting applications, where flexibility and efficiency are paramount. The outcome of this challenge could influence future product development and competitive positioning within the commercial lighting market.
If Signify defends its patent, it will reaffirm its leadership in lighting innovation, ensuring continued exclusivity over a crucial feature widely used in tunable lighting products. Conversely, a ruling favoring Luminex could open the market to broader competition, potentially reducing costs and accelerating adoption of similar technologies.
Looking Ahead
As the USPTO evaluates the arguments presented, we will watch closely how this case shapes the landscape for CCT-adjustable luminaires. Whether Signify retains its patent rights or Luminex manages to overturn them, the decision will set a significant precedent for intellectual property protection in our indsutry.
Read the redacted document here.
Go Deeper: Signify vs. Luminex: Is Menard Indemnified