Invictus Lighting’s Lawsuit Against RAB Lighting May Face Uphill Battle

Invictus Lighting LLC has filed suit against RAB Lighting, Inc. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,801,245, titled Light Fixture. Invictus claims RAB’s field-adjustable LED luminaires violate its patent rights. The patent covers adjustable wattage limiting combined with dimming controls.

At first glance, the case may look simple. A patent holder is trying to protect a popular product category. But a closer review of the patent and lighting technology shows several weaknesses. These could be pivotal if the matter moves to trial or reexamination.

Familiar Elements in an Evolving Industry

The core idea of the patent is to combine an adjustable resistor and a dimming controller. The resistor caps the maximum wattage output. The dimming controller adjusts brightness within that cap. Sometimes, the resistor, known as a trimpot, can be hidden or locked.

According to the patent, this combination helps installers set output levels for specific sites. At the same time, they can use standard dimming controls.  However, LED drivers with programmable wattage settings have existed for years. 0–10V dimming was already a standard feature in commercial lighting.

The key question is whether merging these known elements was truly inventive. Or was it the predictable next step in lighting design?

The Challenge of Obviousness

U.S. patent law requires inventions to be novel and non-obvious. Even if no one patented this arrangement, it might still be obvious. Field-adjustable output limits have been marketed for over a decade. Programmable drivers, dip-switch settings, and integrated dimmers were common tools for contractors.

It is not hard to imagine a defense arguing this combination was routine engineering.

Breadth of Claims as a Liability

Another issue is the breadth of the patent’s claims. Claim 1 describes any “light fixture” with:

• A wattage limiter

• A dimming control

• A driver interpreting the signals

The patent text discusses details like where the trimpot is mounted. It also explains how access might be restricted. Still, the claims are broad enough to cover many products. That may be a problem.

Broad claims often face more challenges from prior art. There are more chances to find earlier examples that make the claims obvious. If the defense shows similar arrangements existed, invalidation becomes likely.

Market Adoption Doesn’t Always Prove Inventiveness

Invictus will probably argue that market success proves the patent’s value. But courts have said commercial success alone is not enough.

To help their case, Invictus must show that buyers valued the claimed combination itself. It is not enough to show that adjustable lighting became popular. Given how fast LED driver technology evolved in the early 2010s, this argument may be hard to prove.

The complaint against RAB could succeed, as no lawsuit is decided on paper alone. Still, the patent’s weaknesses are already clear.

EdisonReport will continue to monitor this case closely.

Go Deeper:  Read the lawsuit here.