Elong International USA, Inc. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the IPR proceeding and the underlying patent.

I have strong material on the IPR itself. Now let me verify the underlying district court case details, the patent's ownership, and party backgrounds.

Case Overview

Note on what this case is: Despite being described as "patent infringement litigation," IPR2025-00258 is not itself an infringement suit — it is an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), i.e., the defensive validity challenge that Elong and Longstar filed in response to Feit Electric's infringement action. The underlying infringement suit is Feit Electric Co. v. Elong International USA, Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-01089-X (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.), filed May 6, 2024. The IPR involves two operating companies squaring off in the LED lighting market — there is no NPE/PAE or university angle. Feit Electric Company, Inc. (City of Industry, California) is an established lighting manufacturer and distributor (LED bulbs, fixtures, smart lighting) that owns and was asserting its own U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 ("the '678 patent"). Elong International USA, Inc. is a U.S.-based LED supply-chain entity, and co-petitioner Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. is a Chinese LED manufacturer — together they imported and sold the accused "white filament" LED bulbs. (A third, related IPR, IPR2024-01357, was brought by Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting and LEDVANCE LLC, and the IPR record there identifies Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. as a real party-in-interest; sources: IPR2024-01357 institution decision; IPR2025-00258 Paper 1/Paper 4.)

Accused technology, patent, and posture. Feit accused Elong's and Longstar's LED filament lamps — the Utilitech White Filament LED (Models 5A19DG8.5WECL27K2P, 2A19DG5WECL50K2P, sold at Lowe's) and Better Homes & Gardens White Filament LED (Models BHS536179061029/20/25, sold at Walmart) — of infringing at least claim 1 of the '678 patent (Feit complaint, May 6, 2024). The '678 patent (issued Dec. 10, 2013; priority date at least Oct. 13, 2011) claims a wavelength conversion component for LED devices having a phosphor-containing wavelength conversion layer plus a light-diffusing layer of scattering particles (e.g., TiO₂) that improves the bulb's off-state white appearance — solving the yellow/orange look of remote-phosphor LED bulbs when turned off — and improves color uniformity across viewing angles. IPR2025-00258, filed Dec. 9, 2024, challenged claims 11–14 (dependent limitations on scattering excitation/blue light relatively more, at least twice as much, and scattering particle size < ~150 nm) and included a motion for joinder to the already-instituted IPR2024-01357. The district court case proceeded before Judge Brantley Starr in the Northern District of Texas — a venue whose fast "Starr schedule" (Markman May 15, 2025; jury trial set for Jan. 20, 2026; stay denied April 7, 2025) is central to what happened next. On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued the discretionary decision (Paper 16) declining institution and refunding fees (Papers 17–18), and the case terminated.

Why it matters. The Director denied institution even though Elong's petition was a verbatim "copycat" of the petition already instituted in IPR2024-01357 and even though Elong offered a stipulation against re-litigating the same prior art in district court. Applying a two-step analysis — first evaluating the petition as if no joinder were sought, then as if joinder were granted — the Director found that (i) no final written decision (projected July 24, 2026, or March 5, 2026 if joined) would issue before the January 20, 2026 trial; (ii) the parties had heavily invested in district court (claim construction complete, discovery near close); (iii) a stay was unlikely given Judge Starr's explicit refusal to stay; and (iv) if Savant settled IPR2024-01357, the Office would be stuck maintaining a proceeding it would never have instituted for Elong/Longstar alone. On January 9, 2026, the USPTO designated IPR2025-00258, Paper 16, as precedential, alongside 14 other decisions on discretionary institution, making it the leading authority on how the Director treats copycat petitions and joinder under § 315(c)/Fintiv — a significant cautionary tale for petitioners who file late, ride on an existing petitioner's coattails, and face a fast-tracked district court trial. Market context underscores the stakes: "white filament" Edison-style LED bulbs are a hot consumer segment, and Feit's parallel enforcement campaign against Savant (stayed) and LEDVANCE (stayed in E.D. Ky.) — while the Elong/Longstar case was not stayed — ultimately ended in a joint dismissal without prejudice in January 2026, leaving the '678 patent available for future assertion. (Sources: IPR2025-00258 Paper 16; IPR2025-00260 Director decision (IPWatchdog PDF); PTAB Litigation Blog, "Two's Company, Three's a (Discretionary) Crowd"; WilmerHale PTAB/USPTO Update (Feb. 2026); Sterne Kessler client alert (Jan. 2026); Patexia IPR2025-00258 docket; Justia/CourtListener, No. 3:24-cv-01089; Unified Patents docket; Ex Parte complaint analysis; inside.lighting complaint watermark copy.)

Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Elong International USA, Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-01089 (N.D. Tex.) — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Scope note

The case metadata you provided (IPR2025-00258) is the PTAB proceeding. The underlying patent infringement litigation is Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Elong International USA, Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd., No. 3:24-cv-01089 (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.), before Judge Brantley Starr, asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 ("Wavelength Conversion Component With a Diffusing Layer," issued 2013-12-10). Below is the litigation chronology, followed by the parallel IPRs and their effect. Facts not confirmed against PACER are flagged.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2024-05-06 — Feit Electric filed the complaint (Dkt. 1) under 35 U.S.C. § 271 against Elong International USA, Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. Accused products: "Utilitech White Filament LED" bulbs (Models 5A19DG8.5WECL27K2P, 2A19DG5WECL50K2P; purchased at Lowe's on 2024-04-11) and "Better Homes & Gardens White Filament LED" bulbs (Models BHS536179061029/20/25; purchased at Walmart on 2024-03-23). The complaint alleged at least claim 1 and reserved additional claims, and alleged willfulness premised on January 2024 license negotiations. Jury demanded. (Complaint; Justia docket 3:2024cv01089; ex parte complaint analysis.)
• 2024-06-10/06-11 — Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to answer (Dkt. 20) granted (Dkt. 21); waivers of service executed (Dkt. 22, 2024-06-26).
• 2024-08-05 — Defendants filed Answer and Counterclaims (Dkt. 25) against Feit — counterclaims (presumptively declaratory judgment of non-infringement/invalidity; text not verified) filed by Elong and Longstar. (Patexia docket entry.)
• 2024-08-26 — Feit filed its Answer to the Counterclaims (Dkt. 35). (Patexia docket entry.)
• Feit's preliminary infringement contentions (under N.D. Tex. Misc. Order No. 62) asserted claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, all literal infringement (no § 112(f)), with a priority date of at least 2011-10-13. (Preliminary infringement disclosure, in IPR2025-00260 exhibits.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2025-04-07 — Joint motion to stay all deadlines (Dkt. 49) — filed during settlement discussions — was denied (electronic order, Dkt. 50): "Settlement negotiations may occur throughout the life of a case and merely discussing settlement is not reason enough to press pause on the entire case." The Court did extend claim-construction deadlines by seven days (responsive brief 2025-04-16; reply 2025-04-23; chart 2025-05-02). (Dkt. 50 text.)
• 2025-05-05 — Dkt. 60, Memorandum Opinion and Order: the Court (i) denied any stay pending IPR and (ii) issued its Markman ruling. On the stay, the Court stated it was "on a schedule that can resolve this litigation more quickly" than the parallel IPR, with claim construction complete — declining to defer to IPR2024-01357 (and the then-pending IPR2025-00258/260). (EX1040 to IPR2025-00260; Feit's DD reply.)
• No motion to dismiss or motion to transfer appears in the accessible docket record; the case proceeded straight through claim construction and discovery on a fast track.

3. Claim construction (Markman) — Dkt. 60, 2025-05-05

The Court construed terms of the '678 patent and resolved § 112 ¶ 2 (pre-AIA) definiteness challenges. Key holdings (per the published opinion, CourtListener No. 10622437; also quoted in IPR2025-00260 exhibits):

• "improves an off-state white appearance of the wavelength conversion component" (claims 1, 29) and "improves an OFF state white appearance…" (claim 19): given plain and ordinary meaning; NOT indefinite. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments that the phrases lacked objective boundaries, a baseline, or quantification: "the claims plainly allow for any improvement," the baseline is "a similar device that does not include the claimed 'light diffusing layer,'" and the improvement must be perceptible to an observer. The Court distinguished Datamize (subjective "aesthetically pleasing" standard).
• "light mixing chamber" (claim 29): construed as an interior volume separate from the wavelength conversion component — the Court rejected Feit's broader reading and held that the Figures 18/19 embodiments (where the wavelength conversion layer fills the interior volume) do not describe claim 29's "light mixing chamber"; claim 18, by contrast, encompasses those embodiments. (Justia Doc. 81 text; CourtListener opinion.)
• The Court adopted Feit's POSITA definition (undergraduate degree in EE/chemical engineering/materials science/physics plus ≥2 years' LED packaging experience; education substitutes for experience), unopposed by defendants.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2024-08 to 2025-05 — The N.D. Tex. case ran on an aggressive schedule under N.D. Tex. Misc. Order No. 62 (early infringement/non-infringement contentions, document productions, claim charts). Feit confirmed no § 112(f) limitations and literal infringement of the nine asserted claims.
• 2025-04-07 — Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 51) set deadlines that, per Feit's later PTAB filings, would put a jury verdict on claim 1 validity before the Board's final written decision in IPR2024-01357 (due ~March 2026). This scheduling reality drove both the denial of the stay and the PTAB discretionary-denial fight.
• 2025-04-24 — Feit leveraged the N.D. Tex. schedule in the PTAB, filing the Patent Owner Discretionary Denial Brief in IPR2025-00258 (Paper 13) with the Amended Scheduling Order (Ex. 2001) and the Order Denying Motion to Stay (Ex. 2002) as exhibits.
• 2025-11-21 — An order was entered in the district court (content not publicly verified; possibly trial/summary-judgment related). (Undated N.D. Tex. order, USPTO PTACTS exhibit.)

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

• A jury trial was scheduled such that, as of June 2025, the parties and PTAB expected a verdict on claim 1 validity before the IPR final written decision (due March 2026). (Feit's Reply in Support of Request for Discretionary Denial, IPR2025-00260, Paper 15.)
• No verdict was reached. No JMOL, new-trial, or fee motions appear in the record. The case was resolved by joint stipulation of dismissal before trial.

6. Final disposition — joint dismissal without prejudice (~January 2026)

• The case closed via a Joint Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — dismissal without prejudice of all claims and counterclaims. No damages, no injunction, no merits ruling, and no claim-construction or validity precedential effect. Feit retains the right to re-assert the '678 patent. (PatSnap Eureka litigation summary; docket entry not independently verified on PACER — treat the exact filing date as approximate "January 2026"; case duration reported as May 2024 – Jan 2026.)
• This outcome is consistent with a settlement (the parties had been negotiating since at least the April 2025 denied stay motion) reached on the eve of trial.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '678 patent and their effect on the litigation

Three IPRs challenged the '678 patent; all directly interlocked with the N.D. Tex. case:

• IPR2024-01357 (Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting & LEDVANCE v. Feit) — filed 2024-08-26; challenged claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, 29; instituted 2025-03-05 (Paper 17). Effect: the N.D. Ohio case against Savant and the E.D. Ky. case against LEDVANCE were stayed on 2025-04-01, but the N.D. Tex. case against Elong/Longstar was not stayed (Dkt. 60). (Ex. 2004/2005 to IPR2025-00260; Director's Decision in IPR2025-00260.)
• IPR2025-00258 (Elong & Longstar v. Feit) — filed 2024-12-09 as a duplicate ("copycat") of IPR2024-01357 with a motion for joinder (Paper 4). Feit did not file a preliminary response but filed a request for discretionary denial (Paper 13, 2025-04-24) invoking Fintiv: the N.D. Tex. jury verdict would precede any final written decision, and the district court refused to stay. After petitioners' opposition (Paper 14, 2025-05-16) and Feit's reply (Paper 15, 2025-06-09), Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a Director Discretionary Decision (Paper 16) on 2025-06-25 denying institution — discretionary denial. The Director held that a copycat petition seeking joinder must first independently satisfy institution standards (including parallel-litigation/Fintiv considerations as if joinder were not sought), and only then be evaluated for joinder. Post-institution fees were refunded (Papers 17–18, 2025-07-01/02). On 2026-01-09 the USPTO designated Paper 16 as precedential on the two-step joinder/copycat-petition analysis. (IPR2025-00258 docket; USPTO govdelivery designation bulletin; Sterne Kessler, WilmerHale, Lexology alerts.)
• IPR2025-00260 (Savant, Elong & Longstar v. Feit) — filed 2024-12-09 (same day as IPR2025-00258) challenging claims 11–14 (grounds: Basin-2007/Basin-2005/Stokes and Krummacher/Shimizu/Stokes), necessitated by Feit's 2024-09-20 assertion of claims 11–12 in the district court actions. Feit's request for discretionary denial was rejected by the Acting Director (decision published ~mid-2025): the facts did not show "potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks," petitioners acted diligently (<3 months after the new claims were asserted), and "importantly, the district court proceeding against [Savant] is stayed." The case was referred to the Board for consolidation with IPR2024-01357. (Director's Decision Denying Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial; Alston & Bird Patent Case Summaries.)
• Effect on the litigation: The PTAB path succeeded for the stayed defendants (Savant, LEDVANCE) but not for Elong/Longstar, whose N.D. Tex. case was deliberately kept on a faster track than the Board's schedule — the central fact behind the IPR2025-00258 discretionary denial. The N.D. Tex. case therefore proceeded through claim construction and toward trial unimpeded, and was ultimately resolved by the parties' joint without-prejudice dismissal (≈January 2026) rather than by any IPR-driven estoppel or stay. As of 2026-08-31, the final written decision in IPR2024-01357 (due ~March 2026) and the consolidated IPR2025-00260 outcome could not be verified from accessible sources and should be confirmed on USPTO PTAB/PTACTS.

---

Bottom line

Feit's infringement suit against Elong and Longstar (N.D. Tex.) survived defendants' validity challenges at claim construction (May 2025), defeated the stay request, and was set for a jury trial faster than the parallel IPRs could resolve validity — which is precisely why the Director denied Elong/Longstar's copycat joinder IPR (IPR2025-00258) on 2025-06-25, a decision later designated precedential. The litigation ended without a merits adjudication: joint dismissal without prejudice of all claims and counterclaims (~January 2026). The '678 patent remains enforceable against Elong/Longstar, and the two instituted/consolidated IPRs (IPR2024-01357, IPR2025-00260) remained pending as of the dismissal.

Counsel of Record for the "Plaintiff" Side in IPR2025-00258

A threshold framing point: IPR2025-00258 is not a district-court infringement action — it is an inter partes review before the PTAB. In the metadata for this matter, "Plaintiff(s): Elong International USA, Inc." maps to Elong's role as Petitioner (joined by co-petitioner Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd.) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 owned by Feit Electric Company, Inc. (Patent Owner). (The parallel district-court case is actually captioned Feit Electric Co. v. Elong Int'l USA Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-01089 (N.D. Tex.), where Feit is the plaintiff and Elong/Longstar are the defendants — so "plaintiff" here should be read as "petitioner/challenger" in the IPR.)

Based on the petition filings, the docket, and the USPTO PTACTS public file, counsel of record for Petitioners Elong International USA, Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. are all at Radulescu LLP:

Caveats on completeness:

• I could not retrieve the full text of Paper 9, "Petitioners' Updated Mandatory Notices" (filed Jan. 27, 2025) — the operative list of lead and all back-up counsel after the Board found the initial petition defective (Paper 8) and accepted the corrected petition (Paper 10). The three attorneys above are those affirmatively identified in the accessible record; there may be additional back-up counsel on Paper 9 not captured in my sources. The authoritative list is on the USPTO PTACTS docket for IPR2025-00258 (Powers of Attorney: Papers 2 and 3 for Elong and Longstar, respectively).
• The patent-owner (Feit) side — for completeness — is represented by Michael Pomeroy (lead, Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, Dallas), with Alexis L. Ritzer and Scott Breedlove (Carter Arnett) and Charles M. McMahon and Thomas DaMario (Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago) as back-up counsel per Feit's amended mandatory notices.

Procedural outcome relevant to counsel's work: The petition (filed Dec. 9, 2024, as a copycat of the instituted IPR2024-01357 by Savant Technologies, with a motion for joinder) was denied institution by Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart in a discretionary decision (Paper 16, June 25, 2025), and the post-institution fees were refunded (Papers 17–18). The decision was later designated precedential (Jan. 9, 2026). In the parallel N.D. Tex. case, the Elong/Longstar defense side also used local/ECF counsel (e.g., Nicholas Najera, who signed the answer and counterclaim), but that is separate from the PTAB counsel of record addressed above.

Sources: USPTO PTACTS public file for IPR2025-00258 (Papers 5, 13–18; Feit amended mandatory notices); ipverse.greyb.com PTAB case page for IPR2025-00258 (petitioner counsel listing); Patexia docket listing for IPR2025-00258; June 2025 email from Andrew S. Brown (Radulescu LLP) in the PTACTS file; USPTO precedential-decision designation notice (Jan. 9, 2026); N.D. Tex. docket for 3:24-cv-01089.

Counsel of record — framing note

Before listing names, one clarification that matters for accuracy: IPR2025-00258 is not an infringement suit — it is the PTAB proceeding Elong International USA, Inc. & Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc., in which Feit Electric is the patent owner/respondent (the "defendant" in the caption as given in the case metadata). The actual infringement defendants are Elong and Longstar, who are the petitioners in the IPR and defendants in the parallel suit Feit Electric Co. v. Elong Int'l USA Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-01089-X (N.D. Tex.). I cover all three relevant sets below, with the caption defendant (Feit) first. No in-house counsel appears of record in the PTAB filings; all counsel of record are outside counsel.

1. Feit Electric Company, Inc. — patent owner / "defendant" in IPR2025-00258

Counsel of record at filing (Papers 6–7, Jan. 8, 2025): Feit initially appeared through the Dallas firm Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, mirroring its representation in the parallel IPR2024-01357 (mandatory notices in IPR2024-01357 list the same team):

• Michael Pomeroy — Lead counsel — Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, Dallas, TX (Reg. No. 76,010). Patent litigator in the Dallas IP bar; also appeared for Feit in the related IPRs.
• Alexis L. Ritzer — Back-up counsel — Carter Arnett (Reg. No. 78,453).
• Scott Breedlove — Additional back-up counsel — Carter Arnett (Reg. No. 46,577).

Counsel of record at termination (substituted effective April 24, 2025, Papers 11–12): On April 22, 2025, Charles McMahon requested Board authorization to substitute counsel in IPR2025-00258 (and the two related IPRs), and the Benesch team filed the new power of attorney and mandatory notices on April 24, 2025. The Director's June 25, 2025 discretionary-denial decision (Paper 16) was served to the Benesch team, confirming they were counsel of record at the close of the proceeding:

• Charles M. McMahon — Lead counsel — Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago, IL (Reg. No. 44,926). Partner; joined Benesch from McDermott Will & Emery in May 2024. Experienced first-chair patent litigator with district court jury trials, ITC Section 337 investigations, and PTAB IPRs; recently featured in Law360 for Benesch's representation of ASUSTeK in a Federal Circuit appeal of a $10.5M patent verdict. The substitution motion noted he was "involved with the related district court litigation and familiar with the issues surrounding the patent at issue."
• Thomas M. DaMario — Back-up counsel — Benesch, Chicago (Reg. No. 77,142). Senior managing associate; licensed Professional Engineer with an EE background; handles patent litigation in district courts, ITC, and PTAB. He had separately entered an appearance for Feit in the underlying N.D. Tex. case (Dkt. 38, Oct. 28, 2024).

Source basis: IPR2025-00258 docket (Patexia), Patent Owner's Power of Attorney (PTACTS download, appointing McMahon/DaMario), April 22, 2025 McMahon email to the Board (PTACTS), IPR2024-01357 Patent Owner mandatory notices (Carter Arnett), Benesch firm announcements/bios, N.D. Tex. docket entries 38/40.

2. Elong International USA, Inc. & Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. — petitioners in the IPR / defendants in the underlying infringement suit

IPR counsel of record (petitioners): The firm Radulescu LLP (New York):

• David Radulescu — Lead counsel — Radulescu LLP, New York, NY. Listed as lead petitioner counsel on the IPR docket ("Petitioner Counsel: Radulescu, David et al.").
• Andrew S. Brown — Of counsel — Radulescu LLP, New York, NY. Identified himself in a Jan. 20, 2025 stipulation email as "Counsel for Savant and LEDVANCE in IPR2024-01357 and Elong and Longstar in IPR2025-00258."
• Etai Lahav — Back-up/designated counsel — Radulescu LLP. Paper 5 (Dec. 9, 2024) is a "Notice of Intent to Designate Etai Lahav"; Lahav was also admitted pro hac vice in the parallel IPR2024-01357.

District court defense counsel (Feit v. Elong, 3:24-cv-01089, N.D. Tex.) — the actual "defendants" in the infringement case, per UniCourt/docket appearances:

• Stevenson Moore V — Defendant attorney (firm not confirmed from available sources; correspondence references the email domain "nilawfirm.com").
• Nicholas E. Najera — Defendant attorney; signed the Answer and Counterclaim (Dkt. 25) and extension motions.
• Timothy Tiewei Wang — Defendant attorney; filed appearance forms (Dkts. 18–19).

⚠️ Caveat: I could not verify the firm name or office for Moore, Najera, and Wang from the sources retrieved; their appearances are documented on the N.D. Tex. docket (via UniCourt/Justia), but their firm affiliation is not confirmed. No local-counsel designation issue arises on the defense side (the motion to proceed without local counsel, Dkt. 4/15, was Feit's).

3. Context: Feit's plaintiff-side counsel in the district court case (not defendants)

For completeness and to avoid confusion, Feit's plaintiff attorneys in 3:24-cv-01089 included Eric H. Findlay and R. Brian Craft (Findlay Craft, Tyler, TX), Michael S. Weinstein and Kalpesh "Kal" K. Shah (pro hac vice, Dkts. 14/16), plus appearances by Thomas M. DaMario (Dkt. 38) and Simeon G. Papacostas (pro hac vice, Dkt. 40). These are plaintiff-side, not defendant-side, counsel.

Bottom line: For the caption "defendant" (Feit Electric) in IPR2025-00258, the counsel of record at termination were Charles M. McMahon (lead) and Thomas M. DaMario (back-up) of Benesch (Chicago), who replaced Michael Pomeroy (lead), Alexis Ritzer, and Scott Breedlove of Carter Arnett (Dallas). If the intended "defendants" are the infringement defendants Elong/Longstar, their counsel of record were Stevenson Moore V, Nicholas E. Najera, and Timothy Tiewei Wang (district court; firm unconfirmed) and David Radulescu, Andrew S. Brown, and Etai Lahav of Radulescu LLP (IPR petitioners' counsel).