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

Case Overview & Background

Parties and the accused technology. Plaintiff Feit Electric Company, Inc. is a privately held California operating company—not an NPE—that imports, distributes, and sells lighting products, with its principal place of business in Pico Rivera, CA (Compl. ¶¶2–3, Dkt. 1, available at inside.lighting). Defendants are Elong International USA, Inc., a Texas corporation with its principal place of business at 1200 W. Crosby Road, Carrollton, TX (within the Dallas Division), and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer based in Xiamen, Fujian (Compl. ¶¶4–7). Feit alleged that Elong and Longstar manufactured, imported, and sold "LED filament lamps" that infringe the asserted patent: Utilitech White Filament LED models 5A19DG8.5WECL27K2P and 2A19DG5WECL50K2P sold at Lowe's, and Better Homes & Gardens White Filament LED models BHS536179061029/20/25 sold at Walmart (Compl. ¶¶17–24). The sole patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678, "Wavelength Conversion Component With a Diffusing Layer" (issued Dec. 10, 2013). In one line: it claims an LED wavelength-conversion component—a phosphor-containing conversion layer plus a light-diffusing layer of scattering particles (e.g., TiO₂)—that makes the filament appear white when the bulb is off and improves color uniformity, with blue excitation light (≥440 nm) passing through to produce the final visible light (Compl. ¶15; IPR2024-01357, Paper 1; Ex Parte complaint analysis). Feit asserted claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 29, and alleged willful infringement based on January 2024 license negotiations that broke down (Compl. ¶¶30–35).

Procedural posture and venue. The case was filed May 6, 2024 in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (3:24-cv-01089), before Judge Brantley Starr, with the case briefly before Magistrate Judges Renee Toliver and (after Special Order 3-354) Brian McKay for pretrial matters (Justia docket; Unicourt). Venue was proper because Elong is a Texas corporation headquartered in Carrollton, in-district, and Longstar, as a foreign entity, may be sued in any district (Compl. ¶¶11, 14). The case progressed through answers/counterclaims (Dkt. 25), a scheduling order setting jury trial for January 20, 2026 (Dkt. 37), and full claim construction: the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Statement on January 10, 2025, and Judge Starr held a Markman hearing on May 15, 2025, then issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order construing disputed terms and rejecting the defendants' indefiniteness challenges—holding, for example, that "improves an off-state white appearance of the wavelength conversion component" is definite because the human-eye-observable whitening provides an objective baseline (Dkt. 81; CourtListener opinion No. 10622437; PTACTS filings). The district court declined to stay the case pending IPR, finding it "too far advanced" (Feit reply in IPR2025-00260, Paper 15, citing Dkt. 51 and the court's stay ruling). The case ended without a merits ruling: the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss on January 29, 2026, and the case was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Dkt. 81 et seq.; Unified Patents docket; PatSnap). No damages, injunction, or judgment of infringement/validity was ever entered.

Why the case is notable. This is a salient example of an operating company enforcing a single "white filament" LED patent across the retail lighting supply chain. Feit filed parallel '678 suits against Savant Technologies d/b/a GE Lighting (N.D. Ohio, 1:24-cv-473) and LEDVANCE LLC (E.D. Ky., 5:24-cv-31), both of which were stayed after IPR institution (IPR2024-01357, instituted March 5, 2025), leaving the Elong/Longstar case as the live test of the patent (IPR2025-00260 Director Decision, June 12, 2025). The case is deeply intertwined with PTAB proceedings: IPR2024-01357 (Savant/LEDVANCE) and IPR2025-00260 (Savant, Elong, and Longstar, challenging claims 11–14 and claim 1) were consolidated by direction of the Acting Director, while Elong and Longstar's joinder-based petition in IPR2025-00258 produced a precedential Director decision on January 9, 2026 denying discretionary institution under Fintiv/General Plastic because the district court trial (Jan. 20, 2026) would precede any final written decision—a decision now cited in PTAB practice commentary (PTAB Litigation Blog; Lexology). The dismissal without prejudice, coming on the eve of trial and after a plaintiff-favorable claim construction, leaves Feit free to reassert the '678 patent (including the newly challenged claims 11–14), while the parallel IPRs continue—meaning the case's main lasting legal artifacts are Judge Starr's definiteness ruling on aesthetic claim language and the precedential IPR joinder decision. The case also sits in a broader LED-litigation landscape: Feit itself was sued by Seoul Viosys in the Central District of California over LED device patents in May 2024 (Linknovate/Laser Focus World IP update), underscoring that LED filament aesthetics and packaging are a crowded, high-stakes IP battleground.

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

The following chronology is built from the PACER-derived docket (Justia/Unicourt/Unified Patents), Judge Starr's orders as attached to PTAB filings (PTACTS), CourtListener opinion No. 10622437, and the PTAB/IPR record. A few dates are inferred from document contents and flagged as such.

I. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-05-06 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Feit Electric sued Elong International USA, Inc. (a Texas corporation in Carrollton, within the Dallas Division) and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. under 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a jury demand, asserting claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 against the Utilitech and Better Homes & Gardens white-filament LED lamps sold at Lowe's and Walmart. Willfulness was alleged based on January 2024 license negotiations that broke down. (Compl. ¶¶17–35; Ex Parte complaint analysis; Unified Patents docket.)
• 2024-05-07 to 05-13 — Initial housekeeping. AO 120 patent report (Dkt. 2), certificate of interested persons (Dkt. 3), summons requests (Dkts. 5–6), pro hac vice applications for Michael S. Weinstein and Kal K. Shah (Dkts. 14, 16), and order granting leave to proceed without local counsel (Dkt. 15). Case assigned to Judge Brantley Starr; initially before Magistrate Judge Renee Toliver.
• 2024-06-10/11 — Answer deadline extended. Unopposed motion (Dkt. 20) granted; answer due 2024-07-11 (Dkt. 21). Waiver of service executed for Xiamen Longstar (waiver sent 2024-06-06; Dkt. 22, entered 06-26).
• 2024-08-05 — Answer and counterclaims (Dkt. 25). Elong and Xiamen Longstar answered with a jury demand and asserted counterclaims, challenging validity (the invalidity contentions later identified § 102/103/112 grounds over references including Basin-2007, Krummacher, Ohta, Koike, Chakraborty, Engl, Jagt, Hoelen, Basin-2005, Shimizu, Stokes, and Tanda — PTACTS preliminary invalidity contentions exhibit).
• 2024-08-23 — Magistrate reassignment. Special Order 3-354 transferred pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Brian McKay (Dkt. 34; case suffix "BW").
• 2024-08-26 — Feit's answer to counterclaims (Dkt. 35).

II. Scheduling & Pretrial Motions of Substance

• 2024-09-25 — Scheduling Order (Dkt. 37). Jury trial set for the two-week docket beginning 2026-01-20; amended pleadings due 2025-05-09; discovery due 2025-06-28; dispositive motions due 2025-10-17; pretrial conference 2026-01-02; pretrial materials due 2026-01-05; status report due 2025-09-02.
• No Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion or § 1404(a) transfer motion appears in the record — the case proceeded straight to answer/counterclaim. (I found no docket entry for either; flagging as a negative observation based on the dockets reviewed.)
• 2025-03–04 — Original motion to stay pending IPR denied. After IPR2024-01357 was instituted (2025-03-05), defendants sought a stay; Judge Starr denied it (referenced in the later renewed-stay opinion and in Feit's IPR2025-00260 reply, which cited Dkt. 51). Separately, the parties jointly moved to stay all deadlines for settlement discussions.
• 2025-04-07 — Joint stay motion denied (Dkt. 50). On the joint motion (Dkt. 49), the Court held that "merely discussing settlement is not reason enough to press pause on the entire case," but extended the claim-construction briefing deadlines by seven days (responsive brief 2025-04-16; reply 2025-04-23; chart 2025-05-02).
• ~2025-12-02 — Renewed motion to stay pending IPR GRANTED (citing Doc. 150-2). After the Board instituted IPR2025-00260 (2025-06-23) and consolidated it with IPR2024-01357, defendants renewed the stay request. Applying the three-factor test, Judge Starr: (1) found prejudice slightly favored denial (Feit is a competitor, but sought no preliminary injunction and accused-product sales were <0.12% of Feit's annual sales); (2) found issue simplification strongly favored a stay (defendants were now estopped under § 315(e)(2) and stipulated to estoppel on any claim found patentable in IPR2024-01357); (3) found the stage of litigation favored denial (trial ~7 weeks away; fact and expert discovery closed; dispositive motions fully briefed). On balance, the Court granted the stay. (Note: this order is later than the original denial; the prior summary's statement that the court "declined to stay… finding it 'too far advanced'" reflects the April 2025 posture, not the ultimate stay ruling. The stay order's docket number is not confirmed beyond the motion at Doc. 150-2; timing inferred from "trial… about seven weeks from now.")
• 2025-12-02 — Technical advisor fees approved (Doc. 165). The Court approved $1,680 in November 2025 fees for technical advisor David Taylor (appointed per Dkt. 48), split 50/50 between the parties — evidence of active technical-advisor use in the run-up to trial.

III. Claim Construction (Markman)

• 2025-01-03 — Preliminary constructions exchanged (per the Joint Claim Construction Statement).
• 2025-01-10 — Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed. No agreed constructions. Disputed terms: "improves an off-state white appearance of the wavelength conversion component" / "improves an OFF state white appearance…" (claims 1, 19, 29); "corresponds to an average particle size that improves the OFF state white appearance…"; "light mixing chamber"; and "planar shapes." Feit proposed live testimony from E. Fred Schubert, Ph.D.; defendants opposed live testimony. Counsel on the filing: Ni, Wang & Massand (defendants) and Findlay Craft (plaintiff).
• 2025-05-15 — Markman hearing held before Judge Starr (per the IPR2025-00258 Director decision and the previous case summary).
• 2025 (May–June) — Memorandum Opinion and Order on claim construction (Dkt. 81; CourtListener opinion No. 10622437). Key rulings:
  • Adopted Feit's POSITA definition (undergraduate degree in EE/chemical engineering/materials science/physics plus ~2 years of LED packaging design experience; defendants did not contest).
  • Definiteness: rejected defendants' § 112 ¶ 2 indefiniteness challenges. The "improves an off-state white appearance" phrases were given plain and ordinary meaning — any improvement suffices, the baseline is a comparable device without the light diffusing layer, and the improvement must be perceptible to an observer. The Court distinguished Datamize: unlike "aesthetically pleasing," the whitening effect is objective because the diffusing layer reduces yellow/orange phosphor re-emission in the off state.
  • "Light mixing chamber": construed so that the wavelength conversion component is not part of the light mixing chamber itself (the chamber provides an air-gap separation from the light emitters); Claim 29's language was held not to cover the Figures 18–19 embodiments (where the wavelength conversion layer fills the interior volume) — that scope belongs to claim 18.
• This was a plaintiff-favorable construction and cleared the way to trial, but it was never applied to a merits determination.

IV. Discovery Milestones of Strategic Significance

• Fact and expert discovery closed ~2025-06-28 (per Dkt. 37); the renewed-stay opinion confirms both had closed and that "the parties have fully briefed numerous motions, including dispositive motions."
• Invalidity contentions put the § 112 (indefiniteness/enablement/written description) and § 102/103 prior-art case on the table early (PTACTS exhibits), and the § 112 arguments were litigated to the Markman opinion.
• 2025-12-02 — Technical advisor compensation order (Doc. 165) reflects the Court's use of a technical advisor (David Taylor) into November 2025, consistent with complex patent issues heading toward a January 2026 trial.
• No discovery-sanctions opinions or compelled-discovery rulings surfaced in the docket sources reviewed.

V. Trial, Verdict & Post-Trial Motions

• No trial occurred. Jury trial was set for 2026-01-20 before Judge Starr (with pretrial conference 2026-01-02 and pretrial materials due 2026-01-05), but the case was dismissed nine days after the trial date opened.
• No verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no fee motion. Because the case ended by stipulation, there was no merits adjudication of infringement, validity, damages, or willfulness.

VI. Final Disposition

• 2026-01-29 — Joint Motion to Dismiss filed (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)). The parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice of all claims and counterclaims (filed by Feit via Papacostas; Unified Patents docket). Because Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissals are self-executing, the case closed without a court order; the docket status is dismissed without prejudice.
• No damages, no injunction, no attorneys' fees, no settlement amount disclosed, and no appeal. The without-prejudice designation preserves Feit's right to reassert the '678 patent against the same defendants or products. Note: the claim construction opinion (Dkt. 81) technically is a court-created order, but it binds only within this now-closed case and is not a final judgment on the merits.

VII. Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Their Effect on the Litigation

• IPR2024-01357 (Savant Technologies d/b/a GE Lighting & LEDVANCE v. Feit Electric) — petition filed 2024-08-26 challenging claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, 29; instituted 2025-03-05 (Paper 17), "rejecting Patent Owner's arguments in toto." This drove defendants' original (denied) stay motion and prompted Feit to add claims 11–12 against Savant.
• IPR2025-00260 (Savant, Elong, & Xiamen Longstar v. Feit Electric) — petition filed 2024-12-09 challenging claims 1 and 11–14 (claims 11–12 were newly asserted against Savant in district court in September 2024). Director Decision of 2025-06-12 denied Feit's request for discretionary denial (no General Plastic abuse; claims 11–12 assertion "necessitated" the petition; the Savant case was stayed). The Board instituted 2025-06-23 and consolidated with IPR2024-01357 (later designated informative on 2026-01-09). This institution — plus estoppel under § 315(e)(2) and defendants' estoppel stipulation — is what tipped the district court's renewed stay motion to granted (~Dec 2025).
• IPR2025-00258 (Elong & Xiamen Longstar v. Feit Electric) — a near-duplicate of the IPR2024-01357 petition filed 2024-12-09 with a motion for joinder; corrected petition accepted 2025-01-31; Feit's discretionary-denial request filed 2025-04-24 (Paper 13); opposition 2025-05-16; reply 2025-06-09. Director Decision of 2025-06-25 (Paper 16) denied institution under Fintiv/General Plastic: the projected final written decision (2026-07-24 standalone; 2026-03-05 even if joined) would post-date the January 20, 2026 trial; the parties had heavily invested in the district case; the district court was unlikely to stay; and there was settlement risk if the original petitioner settled. Post-institution fees were refunded (2025-07-02). On 2026-01-09 the USPTO designated this decision precedential — the leading authority on discretionary denial of joinder-based duplicate petitions (PTAB Litigation Blog; Lexology; Alston & Bird).
• Effect on the litigation: the PTAB timeline drove the stay fight — denial while IPR2024-01357 was pending (April 2025), then grant after IPR2025-00260 institution and estoppel (Dec 2025). The consolidated IPR's final written decision deadline was extended by six months by the Board (per the stay opinion); as of the current date I could not verify whether the final written decision has issued — that is the main open question in the broader '678 campaign. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves the door open for Feit to reassert while the IPRs continue.

Bottom Line

The case is a completed, unremarkable-in-outcome but notable-in-artifacts patent suit: filed 2024-05-06, litigated through a plaintiff-favorable claim construction (Dkt. 81) and a grant of a renewed IPR stay (Doc. 150-2 et seq.), with jury trial set for 2026-01-20 — then jointly dismissed without prejudice on 2026-01-29, with no verdict, damages, or injunction. Its lasting legal artifacts are (1) Judge Starr's definiteness analysis of aesthetic "off-state white appearance" claim language, and (2) the precedential IPR2025-00258 Director decision (2026-01-09) curbing duplicate/joinder IPR petitions filed on the eve of trial.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Feit Electric Company, Inc. — 3:24-cv-01089 (N.D. Tex.)

Based on the complaint signature block (Dkt. 1, available via inside.lighting and PTACTS), the PHV docket entries (Dkts. 14, 16, 26, 27, 38, 40), Unicourt's attorney listing, and the Jan. 29, 2026 joint motion to dismiss (filed by Papacostas per Unified Patents portal), Feit's counsel of record comprised two firms: Findlay Craft P.C. (Texas) and Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP (Chicago/Cleveland). Six attorneys appeared:

Procedural notes and caveats

• Local counsel waiver. Feit's motion to proceed without local counsel (Dkt. 4) was granted by Judge Starr on May 13, 2024 (Dkt. 15), and Findlay Craft nonetheless served as the Texas-based firm on the complaint and throughout — so Findlay and Craft functioned as the Texas presence, with Weinstein/Shah/Papacostas/DaMario admitted pro hac vice from Benesch.
• Lead-counsel designation. The court's Aug. 7, 2024 scheduling order (Dkt. 29) required lead counsel (or a designee) to confer, but the publicly retrieved docket text does not name who was formally designated lead counsel. The evidence points to Eric Findlay and Michael Weinstein as the signing attorneys at filing, with Simeon Papacostas handling the case-ending dismissal filing — I could not verify a formal "lead counsel" designation from the final pretrial order, so treat that label as inferred rather than docket-confirmed.
• No in-house counsel of record. No Feit in-house attorney appears on the public docket; all appearances were outside counsel.
• Sealed filings: None of the appearances or PHV admissions are sealed; all six names are confirmed by docket entries cited above.
• Cross-check with prior summary: This list is consistent with the prior case summary's statement that the case was dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — the dismissal motion was filed by Papacostas on behalf of Feit (Unified Patents portal, entry dated Jan. 29, 2026). No conflict with the case metadata found.

I'll research the defense counsel of record for Elong International USA, Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. in this case. Let me run several searches.

I found the defense attorneys listed on the docket: Stevenson Moore V, Nicholas E. Najera, and Timothy Tiewei Wang. Let me dig into their firms and backgrounds.

Defense Counsel of Record — Feit Electric Co. v. Elong International USA, Inc. et al., 3:24-cv-01089 (N.D. Tex.)

All three attorneys of record for the defendants entered appearances together on June 10, 2024, and each represents both Elong International USA, Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. (Dkt. 18, Notice of Attorney Appearance by Nicholas E. Najera for Timothy Wang, Stevenson Moore, and Nicholas Najera, with attached appearance forms for Wang and Moore; Dkt. 19, Notice of Appearance by Timothy Tiewei Wang — Justia docket, Dkt. 18–19; Unicourt case page). The trio signed the defendants' answer, counterclaim, and the underlying substantive filings (Answer/Counterclaim entered Aug. 5, 2024, per Unified Patents docket).

1. Stevenson Moore, V

• Role: Counsel of record for both defendants (appearance entered Dkt. 18). On the available record he is the most senior of the three Texas-licensed litigators; the docket snippets reviewed do not explicitly label a "lead counsel," so I won't overstate the designation.
• Firm/office: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC — 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 615, Dallas, TX 75231 (email: smoore@nilawfirm.com, confirmed via PTAB service correspondence in IPR2025-00258). Licensed in Texas since 2011; Texas Wesleyan University School of Law (2010) (Super Lawyers profile).
• Experience: IP litigation practitioner; Super Lawyers "Rising Stars" in IP Litigation 2015–2021; also handles general litigation (Super Lawyers). His email appears on the IPR2025-00258 stipulation correspondence concerning the parallel district court litigation, confirming his role coordinating the district court case with the PTAB proceedings.

2. Nicholas E. Najera

• Role: Counsel of record for both defendants; the ECF filer for the defense appearances (Dkt. 18), the extension motion (Dkt. 20), and the Answer with Counterclaim (Dkt. 25) (Justia/Unicourt dockets; Unified Patents portal).
• Firm/office: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC — Dallas, TX (email: nnajera@nilawfirm.com, per PTAB correspondence in IPR2025-00258).
• Experience: Patent litigator with the same Dallas IP boutique; currently appears for the defense in Hermes IP Management LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., No. 2:25-cv-00944 (E.D. Tex.) (PACER Monitor attorney listing), indicating active, ongoing IP litigation work.

3. Timothy Tiewei Wang

• Role: Counsel of record for both defendants (own appearance at Dkt. 19, June 10, 2024) (Justia docket).
• Firm/office: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC — Dallas, TX. Wang's name is in the firm's masthead, indicating he is a principal/partner-level attorney at the boutique.
• Experience: The firm Ni, Wang & Massand is a Dallas IP litigation boutique known for representing foreign (particularly Chinese/Asian) manufacturers in U.S. patent disputes — a natural fit for Xiamen Longstar, a Fujian-based LED manufacturer, and its U.S. affiliate Elong. I do not have verified specifics of Wang's own past headline cases from the sources reviewed, so I won't fabricate any.

Notes on roles and the IPR overlap

• Local vs. pro hac vice: No defense attorney was admitted pro hac vice in this case; the pro hac vice applications on the docket (Dkts. 14, 16) belong to plaintiff's counsel (Weinstein, Shah). Because Ni, Wang & Massand is a Dallas firm, Moore, Najera, and Wang serve as both local and substantive IP counsel. No in-house counsel for either defendant appeared of record.
• Separate IPR counsel: In the parallel PTAB proceedings challenging the '678 patent (IPR2025-00258 and IPR2025-00260, where Elong and Longstar are petitioners), the petitioner-side counsel of record are David C. Radulescu and Andrew S. Brown (Radulescu LLP) and Michael Pomeroy, Alexis L. Ritzer, and Scott Breedlove (Carter Arnett PLLC) (IPR2025-00260 Director Discretionary Decision, June 12, 2025). Those attorneys are not listed as counsel of record in the district court docket; the PTAB correspondence shows the Radulescu/Carter Arnett team coordinating with the Ni, Wang & Massand attorneys (nnajera@, smoore@) on stipulations tying the IPR to the district court case — a common division of labor between PTAB specialists and district court counsel.

Bottom line: The defense was represented throughout by a single Dallas boutique — Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC — through attorneys Stevenson Moore V, Nicholas E. Najera, and Timothy Tiewei Wang, all appearing for both defendants. No lead-counsel designation or separate local counsel appears in the publicly accessible docket entries I reviewed, and the case's dismissal (Jan. 29, 2026, without prejudice) means no amended appearances or withdrawal filings would be expected beyond the standard termination entries.