Your humble editor has read all five counts of the Ideal/Cree complaint against RAB Lighting and it appears the claims are very broad. For example:
- Accused Products meet all the limitations of dependent claim 26 of the ’819 Patent for at least the following reasons: The Accused Products are each a lighting device comprising at least one light emitting diode.
- The ’449 patent generally relates to lightweight, highly efficient recessed lighting devices. The LED-based lighting devices disclosed in the ’449 patent achieve this efficiency and weight while providing consistently good color quality, suitable brightness and good solid state light emitter lifetimes. The accused products meet all the limitations of independent claim 10 of the ’449 Patent for at least the following reasons: 1) The accused products are each a lighting device. 2) The Accused Products include a trim element. 3) The accused products include an electrical connector. 4) The accused products include at least one solid state light emitter. 5) The lighting device weighs less than 750 grams.
The way I read the complaint, Rab would have been home-free if the downlight in question weighed 800 grams, had no trim, no emitter, no LEDs and no connector!
A spokesman for RAB Lighting told the EdisonReport exclusively, “RAB takes all IP matters very seriously and respects all valid and enforceable IP. That being said, we will vigorously defend ourselves and our customers. We believe that this matter will have no impact on our ability to serve our customers in any way.”
Read the claims of the individual patents here: