Philips Drops Patent Infringement Case Against RAB Lighting

Philips Lighting is dropping the patent infringement claim it filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission against RAB Lighting, but will move forward with its claims against six other lighting manufacturers, including NAED-member companies Topaz Lighting, Satco Products, and Wangs Alliance Corporation (WAC Lighting).

In a letter to Lisa Barton, Secretary of the U.S. International Trade Commission, Philips wrote, “complainants Philips Lighting North America Corp. and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. respectfully request that the Commission not institute the above-mentioned Investigation as to proposed respondent RAB Lighting Inc. Complainants therefore request withdrawal of paragraphs 17, 104-118, and 180-183 of the Complaint.”

Philips sent a second letter to the commission, Philips wrote, “Earlier today, complainants Philips Lighting North America Corp. and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. respectfully requested that the Commission not institute the above-mentioned Investigation as to proposed respondent RAB Lighting Inc. Because RAB Lighting is the only respondent accused of infringing claims 10 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559, complainants request withdrawal of those claims from the Complaint. Complainants still rely on claims 10 and 11 for domestic industry, but do not assert claim 10 or claim 11 against any of the remaining proposed respondents in the Complaint.”

Philips is asking the commission to rule by November 6 and requests a 60 day investigation period when the five lighting companies named would not be allowed to import products into the United States.  The other companies are mentioned in the complaint include Feit Electric, Lowe’s, and MSi Lighting.  WAC Lighting and Feit Electric have responded to the Philips complaint, alleging the Philips filing is, “the latest step in a years-long aggressive campaign by Complainants to force lighting companies such as WAC Lighting to pay onerous and improper royalties for a large portfolio of patents that are likely invalid or not infringed.”

Philips responded to the WAC Lighting filing by saying the public interest favors the protection of intellectual property and should favor companies like Philips who invest domestically in innovation. It calls the use of Philip Lighting’s patents, “unfair competition, allowing them to benefit from Philips Lighting’s years of research, development, and innovation without payment.