Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., No. 23-1715 (July 28, 2025), partially undoing a district court win for LED-lamp maker Super Lighting and sending the case back for a second round.
Super Lighting sued CH Lighting for infringing three patents directed to LED tube lamp technology. Before trial, CH Lighting admitted to infringing two of the patents (the "tube" patents), but challenged them as anticipated under the AIA's on-sale bar. The case was tried in the Western District of Texas, where the district court excluded some of CH Lighting's evidence and granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that the tube patents were not invalid. The jury found the third patent (the "circuit" patent) infringed and not invalid and awarded damages for all three patents. CH Lighting appealed.
The Federal Circuit reversed the JMOL on the tube patents, affirmed the verdict on the circuit patent, and vacated the damages award. First, regarding the tube patents, the Court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding key evidence, including testimony of an executive who would have authenticated specification sheets showing the accused tubes were offered for sale before the tube patents' 2015 effective filing dates and an internal Super Lighting presentation depicting pre-priority Cree and Philips tubes. Because the grant of JMOL relied the absence of this evidence, the Court reversed the grant of JMOL and ordered a new trial on the validity of the tube patents. Second, regarding the circuit patent, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's findings. Third, regarding damages, the Court held that because the jury returned a single damages figure for all three patents, the Court's reversal of JMOL on the tube patents supported the grant of a new trial on damages. The Court further instructed the district court on remand to carefully evaluate the reliability of Super Lighting's damages expert in light of the recent en banc decision in EcoFactor. In particular, the Court reminded the district court that "expert testimony should be excluded when it fails to allocate license fees among the licensed patents covered by an agreement." The case now returns to the Western District of Texas for a new trial on the tube patents' validity and on damages.
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.
