RAB Lighting Secures Patent Lawsuit Stay Pending USPTO Review
RAB Lighting has won a key procedural victory in its patent dispute with Invictus Lighting. A federal judge in New York has granted RAB’s motion to pause the case while the United States Patent and Trademark Office reexamines the patent at issue. The decision delays litigation and shifts momentum to the patent review process.
The ruling, issued 15 Apr 2026, stops the case in its early stages. No depositions have been taken, and no trial date has been set. The court determined that waiting for the USPTO’s findings could streamline or even eliminate the dispute.
USPTO Review Could Reshape the Case
At the center of the lawsuit is U.S. Patent No. 9,801,245, which Invictus claims RAB infringed. RAB challenged the patent’s validity earlier this year, citing prior art.
The USPTO agreed to reexamine all asserted claims after identifying “substantial new questions” of patentability. That review is now underway and could result in the claims being upheld, modified, or cancelled.
The court emphasized that this process may significantly narrow the issues. If the patent is invalidated, the lawsuit could be dismissed entirely. Even if the claims survive, amendments or clarifications could redefine the scope of the case.
Early-Stage Litigation Favors Delay
The judge noted that the case remains at an early stage. While initial filings and document exchanges have occurred, the court has not yet invested significant resources.
That timing weighed heavily in favor of a stay. Courts often grant pauses in similar situations to avoid duplicative work and reduce costs for both sides.
Limited Prejudice to Invictus
Invictus argued that a delay would harm its position. The court disagreed.
The decision noted that Invictus does not directly compete with RAB, reducing the risk of lost market share. It also pointed out that Invictus waited several years before filing the lawsuit, weakening its claim of urgency.
Any delay tied to the USPTO process, the court said, does not by itself constitute undue prejudice.
Industry Implications
For the lighting industry, the ruling underscores the growing role of patent challenges in litigation strategy. By shifting the battle to the USPTO, defendants can potentially avoid costly court proceedings or gain leverage in settlement discussions.
For RAB, the stay provides time and an opportunity to weaken or eliminate the claims. For Invictus, the case now hinges on the outcome of the patent office review.
Both parties must provide status updates to the court every 90 days as the reexamination proceeds.
Go Deeper: RAB Patent Stay Motion Filed in Invictus Lighting Lawsuit