Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Ledvance, LLC

Case Overview & Background: Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Ledvance, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-00031-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky., Lexington Div.)

Parties, accused products, and patent. Plaintiff Feit Electric Company, Inc. is a California-based operating company and a leading lighting/smart-home brand (products sold at Home Depot and Ace Hardware), not an NPE — it manufactures and sells its own LED lamps and owns what it publicly calls its "white filament patents." Defendant Ledvance, LLC is a major global lighting manufacturer: the 2016 spin-off of OSRAM's general lighting business, now owned by China's MLS Co., Ltd., and the entity that sells SYLVANIA-branded lamps in North America (Feit press releases, Feb. 5, 2024 and Sept. 19, 2023; ledvance.com). Feit filed this action on February 2, 2024, alleging that twelve imported SYLVANIA "White Filament" LED lamp models — candelabra (B10), A19, ST19, and G25 styles in 2700K and 5000K versions, e.g., Accused Product No. 1, Model LED3.5B10CDIM827FILWHRP40184 — infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 ("Wavelength Conversion Component with a Diffusing Layer," App. No. 13/273,212). The '678 patent claims a wavelength-conversion component with two adjacent layers: a phosphor-containing "wavelength conversion layer" and a "light diffusing layer" of scattering particles (e.g., TiO₂) that masks the phosphor's yellow off-state appearance (the bulb "looks great off or on," per the accused packaging) and improves emitted-light uniformity (Compl. ¶¶ 13–19, available via Edison Report; complaint analysis at ai-lab.azurewebsites.net). Feit asserted literal infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 29 (Plaintiff's Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Aug. 30, 2024), after a December 12, 2023 pre-suit notice letter (Compl. ¶ 12). Feit seeks injunctive relief, damages, and enhanced damages/attorney fees for alleged willfulness.

Procedural posture and venue. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Lexington (Central) Division, before Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves, with Magistrate Judge M. Andrew Self referenced in the caption (DCR-MAS); no jury demand appears on the docket (Justia; UniCourt). Venue is unusual and deliberate: Ledvance's packaging states "Imported by LEDVANCE LLC, 1100 Tyrone Pike, Versailles, KY 40383," and Ledvance maintains a major lamp-manufacturing facility in Versailles, Kentucky (Woodford County) within the district — squarely satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and explaining Feit's choice of an otherwise patent-light forum (Compl. ¶ 15; ThinkKentucky corporate profile). The case proceeded through Rule 26(f) planning (July 2024), a scheduling order, and claim-construction briefing (Feit's preliminary constructions, which rely on expert E. Fred Schubert, were served in October 2024). Ledvance filed invalidity counterclaims and, after the PTAB instituted IPR2024-01357 on March 5, 2025, moved to stay. On April 2, 2025, Judge Reeves granted the stay (DN 63) pending the IPR's final written decision, ordering joint status reports every 90 days and within two weeks of the IPR's resolution (stay order, April 2, 2025, at ptacts.uspto.gov). As of the last publicly available records, the case remains stayed; I found no confirmation of a final written decision in IPR2024-01357, so the stay's current status should be verified against the docket.

Why the case is notable. This suit is the first of a coordinated, multi-front Feit enforcement campaign over its "white filament" LED technology: Feit filed parallel '678 cases against Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting (N.D. Ohio, No. 1:24-cv-473, filed Mar. 13, 2024) and Elong International/Xiamen Longstar (N.D. Tex., No. 3:24-cv-1089, filed May 6, 2024), and publicly announced in September 2023 that it holds a family of "fundamental and dominant" patents covering the white covering on LED filaments. The campaign targets a fast-growing decorative-LED segment where filament bulbs mimic incandescent aesthetics but consumers dislike the yellow off-state look. Defense coordination has been robust: Savant and Ledvance jointly petitioned for IPR (IPR2024-01357, filed Aug. 26, 2024), and the PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims (1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, 29) over obviousness grounds combining Basin-2007/Basin-2005, Krummacher/Shimizu/Stokes, and Hussell-based combinations (PTAB Paper 17, Mar. 5, 2025). Follow-on proceedings include IPR2025-00260 (challenging newly asserted claims 11–14) and the Elong joinder petition (IPR2025-00258), whose Director-level discretionary-denial decision — designated precedential on January 9, 2026 — has become a notable authority on joinder timing and the Fintiv factors in multi-forum patent disputes (PTAB Litigation Blog, May 13, 2026; USPTO Director decision). The Kentucky case's fate thus hinges on a validity challenge that, if successful, could dismantle the core claim of Feit's white-filament enforcement program and reshape the competitive landscape for decorative LED filament lamps in the U.S. retail market.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and case background, then the PTAB IPR, and any rulings.

I have a good foundation. Now let me dig into the docket details, the answer/counterclaims, the stay order, and the IPR proceedings.

Good progress. Now let me look for the scheduling order, any motions to dismiss/transfer, and the current status of both the district case and the IPR as of mid-2026.

Based on my research, here is the chronological account of Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Ledvance, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-00031-DCR (E.D. Ky., Lexington Div.), with sources cited. A note on coverage: my search results include the complaint, key docket entries through the April 2025 stay, the PTAB IPR record through September 2025, and trade-press coverage. I could not confirm any post-stay district court activity or an IPR final written decision as of today (2026-08-31), and I flag the few gaps below.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-02-02 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Feit Electric sued Ledvance in the Eastern District of Kentucky (Lexington), before Judge Danny C. Reeves, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 ("Wavelength Conversion Component With a Diffusing Layer"), which Feit owns (assigned from Intematix Corp.). The complaint named twelve SYLVANIA-brand "White Filament" LED lamp models (candelabra, A19, ST19, and G25 shapes), accused the "white filament" top layer of infringing the '678 patent's dual-layer (wavelength-conversion + light-diffusing) claims, and sought injunctive relief, damages, enhanced damages for willful infringement, and attorney fees. Feit alleged a pre-suit notice letter on or about 2023-12-12. (Dkt. 1; complaint available via Edison Report; semiconductor-today.com, 2024-02-08.)
• 2024-02-05 through 2024-02-14 — Pro hac vice admissions. Orders granting PHV admission for Feit's counsel Kalpesh K. Shah, Timothy P. Heaton, and Simeon G. Papacostas (Dkts. 7–12).
• 2024-02-23/28 — Service. Waiver of service executed; answer due 2024-04-23 (Dkt. 15).
• 2024-05-07 — Answer and Counterclaim (Dkt. 23). Ledvance answered with a jury demand and asserted counterclaims against Feit (the specific counterclaim counts were not detailed in the sources I retrieved).
• 2024-05-22 — Agreed extension (Dkts. 28–29). Feit's answer to the counterclaim was due by 2024-06-11.
• 2024-06-11 — Feit's answer to counterclaim (Dkt. 30).
• 2024-06-12 — Rule 26(f) order (Dkt. 31); 2024-07-26 — Joint Rule 26(f) report (Dkt. 32).

No motion to dismiss or motion to transfer appears in the docket entries I found; the case proceeded directly into the local patent scheduling regime.

---

2. Scheduling Order and Pre-Trial Discovery Milestones

• 2024-07-29 — Scheduling Order (Dkt. 33). Judge Reeves entered a patent case schedule that included: infringement contentions; Ledvance's invalidity/unenforceability contentions due 2024-09-24; exchange of proposed claim-construction terms due 2024-10-08; noninfringement contentions due 2024-10-15; all remaining deadlines deferred until after a claim-construction ruling; discovery disputes referred to the assigned magistrate judge; monthly joint status reports. (Dkt. 33, as quoted in PTAB exhibits.)
• 2024-08-30 — Feit's Initial Infringement Contentions served. Feit asserted literal infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 29, reserved a doctrine-of-equivalents position, claimed a priority date of at least 2010-12-27, identified its practicing "Exposed White Filament" product line, and produced documents (FEITLED00000001–2626; BL-LED-000001–62). (Feit Initial Infringement Contentions, filed as an exhibit in IPR2024-01357.)
• 2024-09-24 — Ledvance's Initial Invalidity Contentions served. Ledvance asserted anticipation/obviousness under pre-AIA §§ 102/103, reserved § 112 (indefiniteness/enablement/written description) and inequitable-conduct defenses, disputed Feit's asserted priority date, and flagged planned third-party discovery. (Ledvance Initial Invalidity Contentions, IPR exhibit.)
• 2024-10-08/15 — Claim term exchange and noninfringement contentions. Feit's Preliminary Claim Constructions (served following the October 8 exchange) proposed "plain and ordinary meaning" for the key terms — including "wherein the light diffusing layer improves an off-state white appearance…," the average-particle-size limitation of claim 21, "planar," and the claim 29 three-dimensional-shape limitation — and reserved the expert testimony of Professor E. Fred Schubert. (Feit Preliminary Claim Constructions, IPR exhibit.)

Strategic significance of the discovery phase: the litigation's claim chart and contentions work ran in parallel with Ledvance's decision, together with Savant/GE, to attack the '678 patent at the PTAB — the IPR petition (below) was filed on 2024-08-26, mid-way through the contentions phase, and the parties' stipulation (2025-01-20) not to pursue in district court any grounds on which the IPR was instituted effectively conceded that the IPR would be the primary battlefield.

---

3. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (IPR2024-01357 and related)

• 2024-08-26 — IPR2024-01357 filed by Savant Technologies LLC (d/b/a GE Lighting) and Ledvance LLC against the '678 patent. The petition challenged claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9–14, 16–21, 25, 26, and 29 (20 claims) on anticipation/obviousness grounds. Panel: APJs Daniel Kazhdan (lead), Thomas L. Giannetti, and Kevin W. Cherry. (Patexia; Unified Patents; PTAB record.)
• 2024-12-17 — Patent Owner's Preliminary Response. Feit argued for discretionary denial (Fintiv) and advanced a construction of "light diffusing layer" that petitioners attacked as importing specification limitations. (PTAB record; petitioners' reply re POPR.)
• 2025-01-20 — Stipulation. Savant and Ledvance stipulated that if the IPR were instituted, they would not pursue the same grounds in the parallel district court litigations with Feit (IPR2024-01357 record; also covering Elong/Longstar joinder IPR2025-00258).
• 2025-03-05 — Institution decision. The PTAB instituted IPR2024-01357, finding a "reasonable likelihood" that challenged claims are unpatentable. (Stay order, Dkt. 63, reciting institution on March 5, 2025; LEDVANCE press coverage, March 2025.)
• 2025-06-23/06-25 — Related joinder petitions.
  • IPR2025-00260 (Savant): institution granted 2025-06-23 and joined to IPR2024-01357.
  • IPR2025-00258 (Elong International USA Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co.): joinder denied 2025-06-25 (Director discretionary denial); post-institution fees refunded July 2025. (IPR dockets via GreyB/IPverse; Unified Patents.)
• Post-institution IPR activity (through Sept. 2025): Patent Owner's Supplemental Motion to Amend (2025-07-18); Board order extending the one-year pendency period for good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) (2025-07-18) — meaning the final written decision deadline runs beyond the default one year from institution; Patent Owner's Response in the joined case (2025-07-25); expert depositions (William A. Doolittle, Ph.D.; Prof. E. Fred Schubert) through September 2025. No final written decision appeared in my search results — as of the latest sources I retrieved, the IPR remained pending (the district court stay remains keyed to that FWD).

---

4. Stay Pending IPR (Current Posture of the District Court Action)

• ~2025-03 — Ledvance's Motion to Stay (Dkt. 61) pending the IPR final written decision.
• 2025-04-01 — Feit's response (Dkt. 62): while disputing many of Ledvance's arguments, Feit stated it did not oppose a stay if the Court found it served judicial efficiency.
• 2025-04-02 — Stay Order (Dkt. 63). Judge Reeves granted the stay "pending the issuance of a final written decision in Inter Partes Review No. IPR2024-01357," with joint status reports every 90 days and a further report due two weeks after the FWD issues or the IPR otherwise resolves.

---

5. Claim Construction (Markman)

The case reached the claim-construction stage but no Markman ruling was issued. The parties exchanged terms on 2024-10-08 and exchanged preliminary constructions (Feit's proposed plain-meaning constructions are in the IPR exhibit record), but the Court's scheduling order had deferred all remaining deadlines until after a claim-construction ruling, and the stay (2025-04-02) intervened before any Markman hearing or order. I found no claim-construction opinion on the public docket.

---

6. Trial, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

None. The case was stayed before trial. No verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion appears in the record I retrieved.

---

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• The litigation is stayed, not resolved. As of the most recent reliable docket/order (Dkt. 63, 2025-04-02), the action is suspended pending the IPR FWD, with 90-day joint status reports. (One aggregator, Ex Parte's AI-Lab site, lists the case "Closed," but that appears inconsistent with the stay order and the Patexia/Unicourt docket data showing "Pending"; I could not verify any post-stay termination, settlement, or dismissal.)
• No settlement, judgment, or appeal has been reported in my sources.
• Outcome driver: the IPR2024-01357 final written decision — if it invalidates the asserted claims, the case is likely to be dismissed or resolved without trial; if claims survive, the stay will be lifted and the case will resume at the post-claim-construction stage.

---

8. Parallel Proceedings (Context)

• Feit v. Savant Technologies LLC (d/b/a GE Lighting), No. 1:24-cv-473 (N.D. Ohio), filed 2024-03-13 — same '678 patent, targeting GE's LED Pearl Filament lamp; Savant is a co-petitioner in IPR2024-01357.
• Feit v. Elong International USA Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., No. 3:24-cv-1089 (N.D. Tex.), filed 2024-05-06 — same patent; Elong/Longstar's joinder to the IPR was denied (IPR2025-00258), though their parallel district case continues.
• These co-pending actions shaped the PTAB's Fintiv analysis (the Board noted none of the district cases was likely to reach trial before the FWD) and the parties' stipulation limiting duplicative litigation of the same invalidity grounds.

---

Sources

• District docket (Dkts. 1, 7–15, 23, 28–33, 61–63) via Unicourt, Patexia, Justia, and PTAB exhibit filings (ptacts.uspto.gov); Stay Order, Dkt. 63 (2025-04-02).
• Complaint text and analysis (Edison Report PDF; Ex Parte case analysis).
• IPR2024-01357, IPR2025-00258, IPR2025-00260 records (Patexia, GreyB/IPverse, Unified Patents, PTAB exhibits incl. petitioners' reply re POPR and 2025-01-20 stipulation email).
• Trade press: semiconductor-today.com (2024-02-08); inside.lighting (2024-03-14; 2025-03-10); ebmag.com (2025-03-11); electricalline.com (2025-03-17).

Caveats: (1) I could not retrieve the substance of Ledvance's counterclaims (beyond their existence) or any docket entries between the stay and today; (2) no IPR final written decision was located in my searches — its issuance, and any resulting district court action, remain unverified as of 2026-08-31; (3) the exact set of claims instituted in IPR2024-01357 is not confirmed (the petition challenged 20 claims; press described 16 challenged claims at institution), though it certainly covers the nine claims Feit asserted in this litigation.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Ledvance, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-00031-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.)

Feit is represented by a two-firm team: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP (out-of-state lead trial counsel, admitted pro hac vice) and Dinsmore & Shohl LLP (Kentucky local counsel). The signature block on Feit's November 6, 2024 filing (Plaintiff's Preliminary Claim Constructions, attached as EX1034 in IPR2024-01357, available via PTACTS) lists exactly five attorneys, and that list matches the docket's pro hac vice orders and the UniCourt/Justia attorney rosters.

Lead / out-of-state counsel (Benesch, admitted pro hac vice)

1. Kal K. Shah (Kalpesh K. Shah) — Lead trial counsel; Partner and Chair of Benesch's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group. Office: Benesch, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60606 (312-212-4949; kshah@beneschlaw.com). Admitted pro hac vice by Order of Feb. 13, 2024 (DN 7/9). Note: He heads Feit's coordinated "white filament" patent enforcement program and has also appeared for Feit in the parallel '678 cases against GE/Savant (N.D. Ohio) and Elong/Longstar (N.D. Tex.), as well as in the Seoul Semiconductor litigation.

2. Simeon G. Papacostas — Partner; admitted pro hac vice Feb. 14, 2024 (DN 11). Office: Benesch, Chicago (spapacostas@beneschlaw.com). Note: Former Kirkland & Ellis and Honigman IP partner; has argued before the Federal Circuit, and — most relevantly — obtained a complete defense verdict for Feit in Seoul Semiconductor v. Feit Electric (C.D. Cal. No. 2:22-cv-05097), the Nichia LED patent case covered by Law360 on Jan. 25, 2023 ("Jury Clears Feit of Infringing Nichia LED Light Patent"); Yale biomedical engineering background.

3. Timothy P. Heaton — Of Counsel; admitted pro hac vice Feb. 13, 2024 (DN 8/10). Office: Benesch, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, 26th Fl., New York, NY 10036 (646-777-0034; theaton@beneschlaw.com). Note: 20+ years of district-court patent trial experience (plaintiff and defense side), Federal Circuit appeals, and IPRs; physics degree from Cornell; member of the NYC Bar Patents Committee.

Local counsel (Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Louisville)

1. R. Kenyon Meyer — Local counsel / Partner and Managing Partner of Dinsmore's Louisville office. Office: 101 S. Fifth St., Suite 2500, Louisville, KY 40202 (502-540-2300; kenyon.meyer@dinsmore.com). Note: Kentucky-licensed trial lawyer (U. of Louisville Law '95) admitted in the E.D. and W.D. Ky.; primarily a business/commercial litigator rather than a patent specialist, consistent with his role as EDKY local counsel for the pro hac vice team.

2. Sarah D. Reddick — Local counsel / Attorney at Dinsmore, Louisville (sarah.reddick@dinsmore.com; same 101 S. Fifth St. address). Note: Appears on the complaint-era docket and the Nov. 6, 2024 signature block as Feit's Kentucky counsel; her public firm profile did not surface in my searches, so her specific patent background is not well sourced — treat as local-counsel support.

Related but distinct: PTAB counsel (not district-court counsel of record)

For completeness: in the parallel IPR2024-01357, Feit designated Charles M. McMahon (Benesch, Chicago; USPTO Reg. No. 44,926) as Patent Owner lead counsel and Thomas DaMario (Benesch) as back-up counsel (PTAB designation, Aug. 4, 2025, PTACTS). Neither appears on the district-court docket as counsel of record for the EDKY action itself, though both are part of the same Benesch/Feit team.

Caveats and flags

• No in-house counsel identified. I found no Feit in-house attorney appearing on the district-court docket; the record shows only the five outside attorneys above.
• Docket coverage limits. The Justia docket snapshot runs to Feb. 2024 and the UniCourt snapshot to Apr. 2024; the Patexia entries through May 2024 show only the defendant's pro hac vice admissions (Srikanth K. Reddy and Brian T. Drummond for Ledvance, DN 24/25). I did not find any later plaintiff attorney additions, but PACER would confirm definitively.
• Status discrepancy. One aggregator (ai-lab.azurewebsites.net) labels the case "Closed," which conflicts with the authoritative metadata and the April 2, 2025 stay order (DN 63) pending the IPR final written decision — the case is stayed, not closed. The stay posture does not change the counsel roster.
• No sealed filings or un-appeared counsel were identified that would prevent confirmation of the above roster.

I'll research the counsel of record for Ledvance in this case through multiple searches.

I found key docket entries indicating Ledvance's counsel: Cory Skolnick (who filed the Answer/Counterclaim), plus pro hac vice attorneys Srikanth K. Reddy and Brian T. Drummond. Let me dig deeper into their firms and roles.

I'm identifying the defense team. Let me verify the full counsel list from the docket and related IPR filings.

Based on the docket record (Patexia/Justia E.D. Ky. entries), PTACTS correspondence in IPR2024-01357, a Federal Circuit opinion, and firm profiles, here is the counsel of record for defendant Ledvance, LLC in Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Ledvance, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-00031-DCR (E.D. Ky., Lexington Div.):

Defense Counsel of Record

Related counsel (IPR, not confirmed on the district-court docket)

• Andrew S. Brown — Of counsel, Radulescu LLP (New York) — lead IPR counsel for petitioners Savant and LEDVANCE in IPR2024-01357 (the IPR that stayed this case) and for Elong/Longstar in IPR2025-00258. His PTACTS emails cc'd — rather than were signed by — the district-court counsel of record in the three Feit cases, so he is best characterized as the coordinated IPR strategist, not a filer in the EDKY action.
• Jeffrey Friedman and Ryan McMillan (Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Cleveland) and Thomas Wang / N. Najera / S. Moore (NIL law firm) were also cc'd on the January 2025 IPR stipulation email; those attorneys more likely correspond to the Savant (N.D. Ohio) and Elong (N.D. Tex.) parallel cases, not the Kentucky docket.

Caveats

• I was unable to retrieve the complete PACER attorney-registration list for Ledvance before search limits were reached; the four attorneys above are those affirmatively documented in docket entries (DNs 23–27), the Law360 attorney-case index, PTACTS correspondence, and the CAFC opinion.
• No in-house counsel for Ledvance appears in the accessible docket record; Ledvance's general counsel has not surfaced in public filings for this case (though Ledvance has in-house IP staff who manage its IPR portfolio).
• No appearances are sealed; the case has been stayed since April 2, 2025 (DN 63) pending the IPR2024-01357 final written decision, so no new counsel entries would be expected absent a lift of the stay.