Hisense (2:25-cv-00764) and Micron Technology (1:25-cv-00073) have each filed a complaint against Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC, Hisense in the Central District of California and Micron in the District of Idaho. Hisense seeks declaratory judgments of noninfringement of four lighting technology patents; Micron, of eight patents, as well as declaratory judgments of unenforceability, based on inequitable conduct and unclean hands, of three of those patents, given that Micron itself allegedly "co-owns those patents and/or is licensed under those patents pursuant to the 2009 Development Agreement" with Integrated Device Technology (IDT). Micron also pleads a claim for relief under Idaho's Bad Faith Assertion of Patent Infringement law.
Polaris PowerLED has been litigating received patents since October 2017, with a shift seeming to have occurred in 2021. That year, the entity converted from a Delaware LLC to a California LLC, afterward acquiring additional patents and appearing to initiate a new assertion push.
Before 2021
Formed (as LED Display Technologies, LLC) in Delaware on July 19, 2017, Polaris PowerLED has indicated that it has no parent company and that no publicly traded corporation owns ten percent or more of its stock. In an early suit against Samsung, Eastern District of Texas Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap described Polaris PowerLED at formation as "owned" by Microsemi, its executive Ralph Brandi, and attorney Mark Yocca and as "managed" by a "Microsemi Manager" (initially David Goren then Keren Bender), a "First Majority Manager" (Brandi), and a "Second Majority Manager" (Yocca).
Goren was a Microsemi executive until its acquisition by Microchip. On social media, Bender indicates having been a part of Microsemi's legal department through 2018 and currently reports a position as a member of the board of directors with Microsemi POE (since 2013) and Microsemi Israel Storage Solutions (since 2016). A September 2017 amendment to the LLC agreement of Polaris PowerLED swapped out Goren for Bender, just before the plaintiff filed its first suit.
In October 2017, Polaris PowerLED filed that first suit against Samsung, hitting VIZIO in 2018; Samsung (again), Top Victory Electronics, AmTRAN Technology, Hon Hai Precision Industry, and Wistron in 2019 (in that order); and TCL, Hisense, LG Electronics (LGE), and VIZIO (again) in 2020 (in that order). Asserted across these complaints are LED display backlight adjustment patents (7,239,087; 8,223,117; 8,843,331) from among those that Microsemi had assigned to Polaris PowerLED (as LED Display Technologies) in July 2017, as topped off by an August 2018 transfer of three more patents from Microsemi to the plaintiff after its name change. Original development work for at least some of the patents transferred was conducted at PMC-Sierra, which Microsemi acquired in 2016; Microsemi itself was acquired by Microchip Technology in 2018.
Throughout this leg of Polaris PowerLED's litigation, the plaintiff targeted with those two patents the provision of devices that support certain LED backlight adjustment features (e.g., local dimming and brightness adjustment based on ambient lighting). The VIZIO case, which had pared down to just the '087 patent, went up to the Federal Circuit after Central District of California Judge James V. Selna revisited claim construction in the context of dispositive motions, granting summary judgment of noninfringement based on a new definition. In September 2020, the Federal Circuit affirmed in a per curiam decision (unaccompanied by an opinion); VIZIO moved for a shift of fees, which request Judge Selna denied in January 2022.
As noted, this earlier suit against VIZIO was filed in the Central District of California, which imposes heightened disclosure requirements on litigants. Initially, the plaintiff filed a certificate of interested parties that identified no nonparties having a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case, but Polaris PowerLED then applied to file a supplemental set of its required disclosures under seal to identify "one additional corporate entity . . . that has a 'pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case'". The plaintiff indicated that it is "contractually prohibited from publicly disclosing the identity of that corporate entity". Judge Selna granted the application, allowing that filing, including the identity of that party, to remain hidden.
Note that after Polaris PowerLED circled back after 2021, it filed another case, against VIZIO and others, in the Central District of California in May 2023, there filing the required certificate of interested parties publicly, identifying Burford Capital as a "capital provider". Burford is a prominent publicly traded litigation finance firm, formed in 2009 by current CEO Christopher Bogart and current CIO ("chief investment officer") Jonathan Molot. Bogart is a veteran of the financial and cable industries, while Molot—also a law professor at Georgetown University—has a history of advising investment and insurance firms concerning "litigation risk transfers where lawsuits threaten to interfere with M&A and private equity deals".
A litigation standstill had stopped the disputes between Polaris PowerLED and Samsung until shortly after its expiration in January 2021, at which point Samsung filed a declaratory judgment action in Delaware, over one of the previously asserted patents. That case ended quickly, in a dismissal without prejudice in May 2021.
After 2021
In July 2021, Polaris PowerLED converted to a California LLC (briefly under the name "Polaris PowerLED, LLC" before amending to add back in the "Technologies"). As part of that conversion, the entity indicated that it had two members, with Brandi and Yocca signing as its managers. Subsequent state filings have characterized Brandi as the LLC's CEO and its type of business as "Technology".
Multiple new assignments were recorded with the USPTO, starting with the transfer of 23 patent assets to Polaris PowerLED from Microchip and its subsidiaries (Atmel, Micrel, and Microsemi) in August 2022. (Microchip had acquired Atmel in July 2016; Micrel, in 2015.) Nine patents moved from IP Gem Group, LLC to Polaris PowerLED in August 2022, and Microchip then assigned five patents to the plaintiff in February 2023, three in July 2024, and three more in November 2024.
IP Gem Group was formed in Delaware in July 19, 2017, the same day of formation for LED Display Technologies (i.e., Polaris PowerLED) there. Jared Crop signed for IP Gem Group on the transfer of the nine assets to the plaintiff in August 2022, Crop giving as his title "Microsemi Manager", suggesting that IP Gem Group is a Microchip subsidiary (through Microsemi). Various Microsemi subsidiaries collectively moved about 100 patents to IP Gem Group on July 21, 2017; only the August 2022 transfer out has been recorded with the USPTO.
Armed with these new patent assets, converted to California, and now publicly backed by Burford, Polaris PowerLED resumed litigation. In March 2022, it sued Dell and Microsoft, together, in the Western District of Texas and Nintendo in the Western District of Washington. Asserted is the '117 patent, at issue in the earlier litigation. Stays were imposed in light of an ex parte reexam (EPR) triggered by Microsoft and an inter partes review (IPR) triggered by Nintendo. The EPR ended in December 2023 with the patentability of claims 1-7, 9, and 15-18 of the '117 patent confirmed; the IPR ended in May 2024 after a settlement with Nintendo. The stay was lifted last June, and a claim construction hearing is now scheduled for February 26, 2025. Judge Robert Pitman presides.
In December 2022, Polaris PowerLED sued Samsung once more, again in the Eastern District of Texas. In this case, the plaintiff asserted three patents (7,259,521; 8,217,887; 8,740,456) received as part of that August 2022 batch from Microchip (not through IP Gem Group). Targeted was the provision of smartphones that incorporate an AMOLED display panel, TVs that support backlight controls, and smartphones that support the Wireless Power Share tool. The plaintiff hit Samsung with another Eastern District of Texas complaint, this one filed last November over a fourth patent (8,314,572) from that same batch. The parties settled earlier this year, the December 2022 case ending on January 31; the November 2024 suit, on February 3.
In May 2023, Polaris PowerLED returned to another set of largely familiar defendants, suing VIZIO, along with AmTRAN Technology, Hon Hai Precision Industry (Competition Team Technology USA), Innolux, Newegg, and TPV Technology (Top Victory Electronics(Taiwan), Top Victory Investments, Trend Smart America, TPV International (USA)) in a single Central District of California complaint. Asserted is a single patent (7,843,148) received as part of the same August 2022 transfer. VIZIO is accused of infringement through the provision of certain TVs, and the remaining defendants, through the manufacture (AmTRAN, Hon Hai Precision Industry, InnoLux, and TPV) or sale (Newegg) of those accused VIZIO TVs.
There, District Judge George H. Wu presides. A stay is in place to await the final written decision in an IPR triggered by a VIZIO petition. The parties have notified the court that the decision is expected in early March.
Finally, in January 2024, Polaris PowerLED sued Western Digital in the Western District of Texas, targeting the provision of certain solid-state drives (SSDs) with three patents (8,554,968; 8,601,346; 9,183,085) that the plaintiff received from IP Gem Group. The plaintiff dismissed that case without prejudice in April 2024, refiling substantially the same complaint that month, this time in the Central District of California and this time naming four codefendants, each a Western Digital "authorized partner": distributors AVNET and Private Label PC as well as online retailers Newegg and Zones. Here, Polaris PowerLED confirms backing by Burford (again, as its "Capital Provider").
Presiding Judge Otis D. Wright severed and dismissed without prejudice the claims against the customer defendants, requiring the plaintiff (if desired) to refile a separate complaint against each customer defendant and relate the new cases back to the suit against Western Digital because "[t]he severed cases are sufficiently related that they should all be before the same judge for case management and judicial efficiency purposes, but they are not sufficiently related for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 299". Western Digital has since filed three petitions for IPR against, one targeting each of the asserted patents, and a motion to stay the district court case to await the results. Judge Wright has yet to rule.
The New DJ Actions
Hisense filed its Central District of California complaint against Polaris PowerLED on January 28, 2025. As noted, it seeks declaratory judgments of noninfringement of four lighting technology patents (the '148; '572; 8,581,810; and 8,217,887 patents). The '810 patent was received just this past November; the '887 patent, as part of the August 2022 batch received from Microchip (not through IP Gem Group).
Hisense notes that Polaris previously sued it and its affiliates in January 2020 (over the '087 and '117 patents), further pleading that Polaris sent it a letter in January 2025 over the remaining patents. In the latter, Polaris alleges that Hisense's U6 and U8 series TVs infringed the asserted patents. Polaris PowerLED dismissed the prior case against Hisense with prejudice in August 2020.
Idaho-based Micron filed its complaint against Polaris PowerLED in the District of Idaho on February 7, 2025. It seeks declaratory judgments of noninfringement of eight patents, the three patents asserted against Western Digital (the '968, '346, and '085 patents) together with five more (8,588,228; 9,021,337; 9,830,245; 9,305,661; 9,799,405).
Micron also seeks declaratory judgments of unenforceability of the '968, '346, and '228 patents based on inequitable conduct and unclean hands. Micron alleges that each of the subject matter of each of these patents was "co-developed by Micron and IDT": "Indeed, IDT and Micron publicly announced the results of their collaboration, with IDT acknowledging that it co-developed, with Micron, the first single-chip enterprise-class flash controller with native PCIe for exclusive use in Micron's PCIe solid-state storage system". Per Micron, "On information and belief, despite the subject matter of [these patents] being codeveloped by IDT and Micron—and therefore co-owned by IDT and Micron—IDT intentionally and deceitfully set out to obtain sole ownership of that jointly-developed subject matter and did so in bad faith".
Finally, Micron pleads a claim for Bad Faith Assertion of Patent Infringement under § 48-1703. Micron bases this claim on the following allegations:
(a) Polaris failed to conduct more than a superficial analysis comparing the claims in the asserted patents to Micron's accused products.
(b) Polaris is asserting a patent (i.e., the '804 patent) against Micron that even a cursory investigation would have revealed is not even owned by Polaris.
(c) Polaris is asserting a patent (i.e., the '245 patent) that it should have known it cannot enforce against Micron because Polaris does not own the '870 patent over which the '245 patent is terminally disclaimed.
(d) Polaris is accusing a Micron product (the M600 SSD) of infringement that easily accessible public information confirms has not been sold for over eight years and, therefore, cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. Sales of that product fall outside the six-year damages period for patent cases. Moreover, Polaris accuses the M600 SSD of infringing an asserted patent (the '405 patent) that issued after the M600 SSD was discontinued, which would make it impossible for Micron's sale of that product to infringe that patent.
(e) Polaris accuses Micron of infringing the '968, '346, and '228 patents even though Micron co-developed the alleged inventions disclosed in those patents and, thus, co-owns those patents and/or is licensed under those patents pursuant to the 2009 Development Agreement. Polaris knew or should have known about Micron's ownership of and/or license to these patents had it conducted any due diligence prior to sending its letters to Micron asserting infringement of these patents.
(f) The functionalities that Polaris accuses of infringement with respect to at least some of the asserted patents are performed by components in Micron's accused products that are supplied by licensed third parties (e.g., Microchip), such that Polaris cannot obtain relief against those Micron products using those licensed components. This is yet another fact that Polaris should have known had it performed some due diligence prior to sending letters to Micron asserting infringement.
(g) Polaris's assertion of alleged infringement is in subjective bad faith because it knows or should know that at least some, if not all, of the allegedly infringing Micron products do not infringe the asserted patents as drafted or as commonly understood by one with relevant and ordinary skill in the art and are objectively baseless and lack merit.
The '804 patent mentioned here refers to a patent identified in an assertion letter to Micron (9,418,804) that issued to Eaton Electrical IP GmbH & Co. KG and appears to be currently owned by Eaton Intelligent Power Limited, at least according to currently available USPTO assignment records. The mention of this patent in the assertion letter is likely due to a typo, as the 9,417,804 patent was among those assigned by IP Gem Group to Polaris PowerLED in August 2022.
Both Hisense and Micron attach to their respective complaints assertion letters sent to them in January 2025. The letters are signed by Yocca, as Polaris PowerLED's president. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett has been assigned to the Hisense suit; B. Lynn Winmill, to the Micron case. 1/28, Hisense, Central District of California; 2/7, Micron, District of Idaho.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
