NextWaveDV – Update on Litepanels budget LED patent infringement suit at the ITC

by planetmitch2 Comments

Many of you have heard about this, so I thought planet5D should provide an update, and here's what we've gotten from Tony Reale from NextWaveDV about the Litepanels budget LED patent infringement lawsuit. They are looking for evidence of LED usage in filmmaking before September 9, 2001 – so if you have anything that can help, please let us know.

Personally, I'm torn… I see both sides of these kinds of stories. First, I believe that if you have a patent, then you have the right to defend it… second, I also feel for the guys on the other side of some patents who feel that the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

In this particular case, I frankly haven't done enough research to pick a side and I'm only reporting what Tony is passing along… if Litepanels would like to post an opposing viewpoint, I'll gladly post their side – but when I asked for input from them last fall, I didn't get a reply.

From NextWaveDV

As many of you know, we reported on the Litepanels and their attempt to block the import of LEDs for video and photo back in August. A handful of companies have decided to fight Litepanels rather than give up the rights to sell LED lighting. The legal battle has been a slow uphill battle for them but it looks like things are making some headway. That said, I was contacted by one of the lawyers representing the companies battling Litepanels. This lawyer informed me of some crucial evidence they need to help nullify Litepanels patent claims.

As you may be aware, we’ve been in the “discovery” phase of the investigation since last August. “Discovery” means that the two opponents (i.e. the “Complainant” Litepanels on one side and the “Respondents” whom we represent on the other side) quiz each other about facts relating to the investigation. Each side is duty-bound by law to provide any relevant documents in their possession for the other side to examine, but only under the very strict condition that each side must scrupulously protect the secrecy of any confidential business information that the other side discloses. This process is where most of the “detective work” on an ITC investigation takes place.

But at a certain point, the “discovery” process runs its course and it becomes necessary to do some outside “sleuthing”. That’s where you and the rest of the cinematography community can really help out, as I’ll explain below.

U.S. federal patent law contains a provision called a “prior use statutory bar”, which just means that if an application for a patent covering a certain invention is not filed within one year after an embodiment of the invention is first offered for sale or otherwise disclosed to the public, then that invention is deemed to have been dedicated to the public and cannot be patented. The corollary is that any patent issued for such a previously-disclosed invention can subsequently be ruled invalid if the prior public disclosure is brought to the attention of the relevant authorities (either a court or the US patent office).

So what we are endeavoring to do now is gather information that will lead to a smoking gun – a verifiable instance of white LEDs being commercially used for illumination of subjects in photography or cinematography prior to the “critical date”. In this case, the application for the first Litepanels patent was filed on September 9, 2001, so any public use prior to September 9, 2001 will be potentially lethal to the patents that Litepanels is asserting against us.

You may also be aware that the hearing in this investigation (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-804) is scheduled to take place in the middle of June. So at the same time that we are scurrying to gather as much evidence from the community as we can, we are also busily preparing our trial briefs and exhibits.

If you have any records of LED purchases prior to the above dates, contact them directly to help with the case. You can also help by spreading the word.

Any input?

So, do you have anything that would help out? Please let us know!

via NextWaveDV – Update on Litepanels budget LED patent infringement suit at the ITC.


  Disclaimer: we don't have a relationship with Litepanels – tho we've talked to them about being a planet5D sponsor. (see more on our eithics page). We publish gear news because our users have asked us to let them know when we find things that may help them improve their shooting. If you're a gear maker and would like us to publish your HDSLR related products, please contact planet5D  


(cover photo credit: snap from the nextwavedv site)


  1. Hi Mtich –

    I certainly agree with you that someone who has a patent accordingly has the right to defend it. But Litepanels is going much further then defending, they are aggressively asserting themselves and attempting to impose an across-the-board tax on American cinematographers and anybody else that wants to use a detachable LED camera light in the United States.
    Litepanels actually has a whole thicket of patents, about a dozen in total, which each including dozens of individual “claims.” Every year or so Litepanels lobs another patent application over the transom at the USPTO, just to keep the pot stirred. These patents are all variations on a LED “Ringlite” that the Litepanels founders put together back in 1999, and are all based on the same basic “specification.”
    Litepanels is the quintessential patent “troll” in the LED camera light space. Their objective in applying for patents is not so much to protect their inventions, but more to keep everybody else out of the space so they can do whatever they want, charge whatever price they want and force consumers and end users to come knocking on their door, money in hand.
    Maybe the big studios and producers can afford to play along with Litepanels, but from the perspective of the typical free-lance professional or serious amateur, it’s just unreasonable.

Leave a Comment