Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting

Case Overview & Background

Parties and accused products. Feit Electric Company, Inc. is a family-owned operating company and lighting/smart-home manufacturer headquartered in the Los Angeles area; it sells its own white-filament LED decorative bulbs through Home Depot and Ace Hardware and is not a patent assertion entity (Feit press release, Mar. 13, 2024; Unified Patents lists its entity type as "Operating Company"). Defendant Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting is the lighting arm of smart-home company Savant Systems, which acquired GE Lighting from General Electric in July 2020 and kept GE Lighting's headquarters at historic NELA Park in East Cleveland, Ohio, with a long-term GE brand license (Savant/GE Lighting press release, July 1, 2020). Feit alleges that Savant imported and sold GE "LED Pearl Filament" bulbs—specifically models LED5DST19M/SW9GCQWF-2T, LED5DST19M/DL9GCQWF-2T, and LED6DBC/SW9GCQWF-3T ("Pearl Filament HD")—that copy Feit's white-filament technology: unlike conventional yellow phosphor filaments, the accused products use a white diffusing layer so the bulb appears white even in the off state (RPX-published complaint excerpts; Feit infringement-contentions analysis in IPR2024-01357 record).

Patents and procedural posture. Feit asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 ("Wavelength Conversion Component With a Diffusing Layer," issued Dec. 10, 2013) and U.S. Patent No. 8,614,539 ("Wavelength Conversion Component with Scattering Particles," issued Dec. 24, 2013), both from the same 2010-provisional family and both covering an LED wavelength-conversion component with a photoluminescent (phosphor) layer plus a light-scattering/diffusing layer—the '678 emphasizing improved off-state white appearance and passage of blue excitation light ≥440 nm, the '539 emphasizing that the scattering material's particle size is selected to scatter blue excitation light at least twice as much as phosphor-generated light (PTAB institution decision, IPR2024-01357; IPR2025-00698 petition). The case is before Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan in the Northern District of Ohio (1:24-cv-00473-BMB, filed Mar. 13, 2024), with Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker assigned for referrals and the court's Local Patent Rules governing the case (Justia docket). Venue is straightforward: Savant/GE Lighting is headquartered at NELA Park in East Cleveland, squarely within the district, satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). After claim-construction briefing began in early 2025, Judge Brennan granted Savant's renewed motion to stay on April 1, 2025, pending PTAB review, ordering a status report within five business days of the USPTO proceedings' conclusion (Doc. 46/47; NEF order, Apr. 1, 2025). No merits decision was reached; the case was administratively/statistically closed on August 14, 2025 (Patexia docket metadata—I could not independently confirm the closing docket entry on PACER).

Why the case matters. This is the centerpiece of Feit's "white filament" enforcement campaign: after publicly announcing its "white filament patents" in September 2023 (U.S. Patents 8,604,678; 8,610,340; 8,610,341; 8,614,539; 8,957,585), Feit sued LEDVANCE (E.D. Ky., Feb. 2024), Savant (this case, Mar. 2024), and Elong/Xiamen Longstar (N.D. Tex., May 2024) in parallel actions. The litigation is notable for its coordinated PTAB counterattack: Savant and LEDVANCE filed IPR2024-01357 (Aug. 26, 2024), which the Board instituted on all challenged claims of the '678 patent (Mar. 5, 2025), with Elong and Longstar later joined; a follow-on IPR2025-00260 (challenging newly-asserted claims 11–14 of the '678 patent) was instituted June 23, 2025 after the Director declined discretionary denial, and IPR2025-00698 challenging the '539 patent was instituted October 6, 2025—all still pending with briefing through 2026. Notably, the PTAB institution decision identifies Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. as a real party-in-interest, underscoring that multiple industry players are backing the validity challenge. The case also sits in a crowded LED-filament IP landscape in which Feit has itself been a defendant—it was a respondent in UC Regents' ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1220 (Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes, where the Commission found no Section 337 violation in 2022) and was sued by Seoul Semiconductor in 2020 and 2022—making this a notable instance of a mid-sized operating company pivoting from target to enforcer in a fast-growing decorative-lighting category it claims to have pioneered in August 2022.

Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Case No. 1:24-cv-00473-BMB (N.D. Ohio) | Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan | Filed 2024-03-13 | Stayed; administratively (statistically) closed 2025-08-14

Patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 ("Wavelength Conversion Component With a Diffusing Layer") and U.S. Patent No. 8,614,539 (related patent). Accused products: GE "LED Pearl Filament" bulbs (e.g., LED5DST19M/SW9GCQWF-2T, LED5DST19M/DL9GCQWF-2T, LED6DBC/SW9GCQWF-3T).

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-03-13 — Complaint (Dkt. 1). Feit Electric sued Savant in the N.D. Ohio, asserting a single count of infringement of the '678 patent and seeking injunctive relief, damages, enhanced damages for alleged willful infringement, and fees. Case assigned to Judge Brennan; Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker for referrals; designated a Local Patent Rules case. (Justia docket; joint motion to amend CMO, PTACTS; Feit press release 2024-03-13.)
• 2024-03-14 — Service executed personally on Savant (Dkt. 6).
• 2024-05-03 — Savant's responsive pleadings (Dkts. 7–8). Savant filed an unopposed motion for leave to respond and a motion for leave to file its Answer and Affirmative Defenses instanter (attaching, notably, March 2022 emails — evidently pre-suit notice correspondence relevant to willfulness). (Justia docket.) No counterclaims are reflected in the available docket sources.
• 2024-09-20 — Amended Complaint. Feit filed an amended complaint adding infringement allegations as to U.S. Patent No. 8,614,539 and (per the PTAB Director's later decision) additionally asserting claims 11–12 of the '678 patent. (Joint motion to amend CMO; IPR2025-00260 Director's Decision, Paper 13/14.)
• 2024-09-24 / 2024-10-08 — Contingent amendment fight. Feit filed a contingent motion for leave to amend to add the '539 patent (Dkt. 30); Savant opposed (Dkt. 35).
• 2024-12-12 — Court order. The Court granted the parties' joint motion to amend the Case Management Order, denied as moot Feit's motion for leave to amend (the amended complaint was already within the CMO deadline), and denied without prejudice Savant's first motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 25), inviting re-filing within seven business days if the PTAB instituted review. (PTACTS docket text, 2024-12-12.)
• 2024-12-17 — Answer to Amended Complaint filed by Savant. (Joint motion to amend CMO, PTACTS.)

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 25) — denied without prejudice on 2024-12-12, before PTAB institution.
• Renewed motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 46) — GRANTED on 2025-04-01. The Court noted Feit did not oppose a stay "to the extent the Court determines a stay is warranted" (Dkt. 47 at PageID #2071), and ordered Feit to file a status report within five business days of the conclusion of the USPTO proceedings, warning that failure could result in dismissal. (NEF/order text, 2025-04-01.)
• No motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment were identified in available sources.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• The Case Management Order (Dkt. 19, as amended 2024-12-12) set the claim construction hearing for 2025-03-11 at 9:00 a.m., with Local Patent Rule 4.1–4.3 deadlines for the newly added '539 patent (preliminary constructions and expert reports) running January–February 2025, per a January 3, 2025 joint request to adjust the pre-Markman schedule. (Joint motion to amend CMO, PTACTS.)
• No Markman order or claim-construction ruling has been identified in the public record; the case was stayed on 2025-04-01, and it is unclear from available sources whether the 2025-03-11 hearing actually proceeded to a ruling. Treat the absence of a construction order as unconfirmed rather than established.

4. Discovery Milestones (strategic significance)

• 2024-10-08 — Supplemental Initial Infringement Contentions for the '678 patent were served (cited as EX1039 in IPR2024-01357 briefing), identifying the Pearl Filament models and mapping claim 1 elements (wavelength conversion layer, diffusing TiO₂ layer, off-state white appearance, ≥440 nm blue excitation).
• Early 2025 — '539 patent contentions. Under the amended CMO, Feit's infringement contentions for the '539 patent were due 2025-01-06, with invalidity contentions due 2025-01-24 and claim-construction expert reports due February 4/13, 2025.
• 2025-01-20 — IPR estoppel-style stipulation. Savant (with LEDVANCE) stipulated in IPR2024-01357 that if the IPR were instituted, they would not pursue the same grounds in the parallel district court cases — a concession that helped clear Fintiv obstacles to institution and, practically, narrowed the litigation issues. (PTACTS stipulation email, 2025-01-20.)
• No other major discovery disputes, and no discovery sanctions, were identified.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• None. The case never reached trial. No verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion exists in the record. The action was stayed before any merits adjudication.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (and effect on the litigation)

• IPR2024-01357 — Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting and LEDVANCE LLC v. Feit Electric Co., U.S. Patent 8,604,678. Petition filed 2024-08-26; trial instituted 2025-03-05 (Paper 17). Panel: Judges Kazhdan (writing), Giannetti, Cherry. Challenged claims as instituted include claims 1–3, 6–7, 9–14, 16–21, 25–26, 29 (petition scope per Patexia/Unified Patents). This institution is what triggered the renewed stay.
• IPR2025-00260 — Savant, Elong International USA Inc., and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co. v. Feit, '678 patent, challenging claims 1, 11–14. Petition filed 2024-12-09 (after Feit added claims 11–12 in the amended complaint). Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart declined discretionary denial (finding no "repeated attacks" abuse under General Plastic and noting the district court case was stayed); the Board instituted trial and granted joinder with IPR2024-01357 on 2025-06-23, directing consolidation absent extraordinary circumstances.
• IPR2025-00258 — Elong and Longstar v. Feit, '678 patent (parallel N.D. Tex. litigation), filed 2024-12-09; joinder motion to IPR2024-01357 filed 2025-06-25.
• IPR2025-00698 — Savant, Elong, and Longstar v. Feit, U.S. Patent 8,614,539 (the second asserted patent), filed in 2025; Feit's mandatory notices (2025-04-15) list it as related to this case. No institution decision was identified in my search.
• Current PTAB status (as of 2026-08-31): IPR2024-01357 and IPR2025-00260 remain instituted/pending per PTAB tracker data (last updated mid-2026). The Board granted a good-cause one-year pendency extension on 2025-07-18 (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); § 42.100(c)), and the parties were in expert/amendment phase through late 2025 (Patent Owner's response, motions to amend, oppositions, depositions of Dr. William Doolittle and E. Fred Schubert). No final written decision has been identified as of today's date.

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• 2025-04-01 — Stay entered, pending resolution of the IPRs, with a mandatory post-IPR status report.
• 2025-08-14 — Statistical closing (administrative closure) of the district court case; Patexia records a termination date of 2025-08-14 with status "Statistical Closing." (Patexia case summary.) This is an administrative docket-closure mechanism for stayed cases in the N.D. Ohio, not a merits judgment.
• Present posture: The case remains stayed/administratively closed with no merits decision, no settlement, and no appeal identified. Disposition effectively awaits the PTAB final written decisions on the '678 and '539 patents. Notably, the parallel Elong/Longstar litigation (N.D. Tex., also involving the '678 patent) ended in a joint voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) in early 2026, but no equivalent resolution has been identified in this Savant case.

---

Key Caveats on Sourcing

• Docket specifics (Dkt. 1–8, 25, 30, 34, 35, 46–47) come from Justia's docket snapshot (retrieved 2024-05-03) and PTACTS-filed court documents; I could not pull the full PACER docket to confirm every intermediate filing (e.g., the precise date of the CMO entry, or any post-stay status reports).
• No counterclaims were identified for Savant; if any exist beyond the "Answer and Affirmative Defenses," they are not reflected in the sources reviewed.
• The 2025-03-11 Markman hearing and any resulting order could not be confirmed — no claim construction opinion was located.
• The final written decisions in IPR2024-01357 / IPR2025-00260 / IPR2025-00698 have not yet been located as of 2026-08-31; all available trackers still show these as pending/instituted.
• The Justia cause-of-action notation "15 U.S.C. § 1126" is a docket scrivener's error; the case is a 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement action.

Based on my research, here is what can be reliably established about plaintiff Feit Electric's counsel of record in Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting, No. 1:24-cv-00473-BMB (N.D. Ohio). Note that the full PACER appearance list for this case is not freely accessible, so I have identified counsel through signed filings, docket text, CMC orders, and related PTAB/IPR records rather than the CM/ECF attorney roster itself.

Lead / of-record counsel

Michael S. Weinstein — Lead counsel for Feit Electric (the only attorney signing Feit's pleadings and the one who appeared for Feit at the case management conference).

• Firm/office: Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP, 127 Public Square, Suite 4900, Cleveland, OH 44114.
• Role: He filed the original Complaint (Doc. 1, 3/13/2024, "Filed by Feit Electric Company, Inc. ... (Weinstein, Michael)" per the Justia docket), filed the Return of Service (Doc. 6), signed the September 20, 2024 Amended Complaint adding the '539 patent (signature block: "BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP /s/ Michael S. Weinstein ... Attorney for Feit Electric Company, Inc."), and appeared for Feit at the 6/25/2024 CMC (Doc. 19-1: "Attorney Michael Weinstein participated on behalf of Plaintiff"). Because Benesch's Cleveland office is in the Northern District of Ohio, no separate local counsel was needed.
• Experience: Benesch IP litigator with long-running patent/trademark trial practice; he is Feit Electric's primary outside counsel in its white-LED-filament enforcement campaign (including the parallel cases against LEDVANCE in E.D. Ky. and Elong in N.D. Tex., and the related ITC matter).

Other Benesch attorneys associated with Feit's side of the litigation

Several other Benesch attorneys were copied/listed on Feit-side communications spanning the related litigations and IPRs, and some appear in Feit's IPR/ITC representations. The IPR2024-01357 stipulation email (dated 1/20/2025) CC'd the following Benesch addresses for Feit: chemphill@beneschlaw.com, kshah@beneschlaw.com, sruggio@beneschlaw.com, spapacostas@beneschlaw.com, tdamario@beneschlaw.com, theaton@beneschlaw.com, calmendarez@beneschlaw.com, and mweinstein@beneschlaw.com — but that email CC'd counsel across three separate Feit cases (LEDVANCE/EDKY, Savant/NDOH, Elong/NDTX), so I cannot confirm from public sources that each of these attorneys formally entered an appearance in 1:24-cv-00473 specifically. Candidates likely involved in Feit's overall effort include:

• Kal K. Shah (Benesch, Chicago) — served as counsel for Feit in the related ITC investigation (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1220 filings list "Kal K. Shah, Simeon Papacostas, Benesch ... Counsel for Respondent Feit Electric Company, Inc."). Patent/ITC litigation background.
• Simeon Papacostas (Benesch, Chicago) — co-counsel with Shah for Feit in the ITC matter; patent litigation experience.
• Sara Ruggerio, Christian Hemphill, Thomas D'Amario, Tyler Heaton, and Claudia Almandarez (Benesch) — appear on Feit-side service lists in the related IPRs/parallel cases, but their individual appearances in this ND Ohio docket are not independently documented in the sources I could access.

PTAB counsel relevant to the stay (not district court counsel of record)

Because the case was stayed pending IPR2024-01357 / IPR2025-00260, it is worth noting Feit's designated patent-owner counsel in those IPRs (per the PTAB designation of counsel filed January 2025):

• Michael Pomeroy (lead, Reg. No. 76,010), Alexis L. Ritzer (back-up, Reg. No. 78,453), and Scott Breedlove (additional back-up, Reg. No. 46,577) — all of Carter Arnett PLLC, 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500, Dallas, TX. These attorneys handled the IPR defenses that are the predicate for the district court stay, but they are not listed as counsel of record in the district court action itself.

Caveats

• The case was administratively/statistically closed on August 14, 2025, while stayed pending the IPRs; no merits decision was reached. The docket is otherwise unsealed, but the complete CM/ECF attorney roster (including any pro hac vice appearances) is paywalled on PACER and not fully reproduced in the free docket mirrors (Justia's version was last retrieved May 3, 2024, and only lists "Michael S. [Weinstein]" for the plaintiff).
• I did not identify any in-house counsel of record for Feit; the public filings are signed by outside counsel.
• If you need the definitive appearance list, the reliable next step is pulling the PACER docket report or the "Attorney List/Party List" for 1:24-cv-00473 from PACER (Northern District of Ohio), which would show all attorneys who have filed notices of appearance.

I'll research the counsel of record for defendant Savant Technologies in this case. Let me search multiple sources.

I found initial leads. The Justia docket shows defendant filings by "(McMillan, Ronald)" and the PTAB IPRs show Radulescu LLP representing Savant as petitioner. Let me dig deeper into the district court docket and attorney appearances.

I now have the core signature block from the defendant's claim-construction filing: Calfee, Halter & Griswold (Joshua A. Friedman, Ronald M. McMillan) plus Radulescu LLP (David C. Radulescu, Etai Lahav, Jonathan Auerbach) as pro hac vice counsel. Let me verify the pro hac vice admissions, roles, and look for any in-house or additional counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting

Savant is represented by a two-firm team: Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP (Cleveland – local/Ohio counsel) and Radulescu LLP (New York – lead/pro hac vice patent litigation counsel, also Savant's counsel in the parallel IPR campaign). This team appears on the defendant's substantive filings (e.g., Savant's Final Proposed Claim Constructions, dated Feb. 25, 2025, signed by all five attorneys below) and on the CM/ECF notice list for the court's April 1, 2025 stay order.

Lead / pro hac vice counsel — Radulescu LLP (New York, NY)

1. David C. Radulescu, Ph.D. — Lead counsel (pro hac vice in the district court; USPTO Reg. No. 36,250)

   • Firm/office: Radulescu LLP, 5 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10001 (david@radip.com)
   • Experience: Registered patent attorney and founder of Radulescu LLP; serves as lead counsel for Savant (with LEDVANCE, Elong, and Longstar) in IPR2024-01357, IPR2025-00260, and IPR2025-00698 challenging both asserted patents — the PTAB proceedings that drove the district-court stay. He is the architect of the coordinated validity attack on Feit's '678/'539 family (PTACTS records; IPR2024-01357 papers designate him lead counsel, Reg. No. 36,250).

2. Etai Lahav — Of counsel / pro hac vice (district court)

   • Firm/office: Radulescu LLP, New York, NY (etai@radip.com)
   • Experience: ~17 years as a patent litigator as of his 2024 pro hac vice declaration; extensive district-court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB practice in semiconductor/electronics matters, with over 20 prior IPR pro hac vice admissions (e.g., IPR2014-00477, IPR2018-01574, IPR2022-00395 et seq.). His IPR pro hac vice motion expressly lists this case (Feit Electric v. Savant, 1:24-cv-00473 NDOH) among his representative matters.

3. Jonathan Auerbach — Pro hac vice (district court)

   • Firm/office: Radulescu LLP, New York, NY (jonathan@radip.com)
   • Experience: Signed the defendant's claim-construction submissions and received CM/ECF notices; active in the coordinated Feit IPRs alongside Radulescu and Lahav.

4. Andrew Swanson Brown — Of counsel (Radulescu LLP), involved in the IPR track

   • Firm/office: Radulescu LLP, New York, NY (andy@radip.com; 212-713-0356)
   • Experience: Identified as "Of Counsel" at Radulescu LLP in correspondence; served as counsel for Savant and LEDVANCE in IPR2024-01357 and for Elong/Longstar in the related IPR, and appears on the district-court CM/ECF mailing list for this case. I could not confirm from public sources whether he filed a formal appearance in the district court action separate from the IPR docket — his NEF listing suggests he is on the case's service list.

Local counsel — Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP (Cleveland, OH)

1. Ronald M. McMillan (Ohio Bar No. 0073247) — Local counsel

   • Firm/office: Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, The Calfee Building, 1405 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114 (rmcmillan@calfee.com)
   • Role: Filed the defendant's first substantive papers — the unopposed motion for leave to respond and motion for leave to file instanter answer (Docs. 7 & 8, May 3, 2024) — and signed the Feb. 2025 claim-construction filing; primary CM/ECF filer for Savant.

2. Joshua A. Friedman (Ohio Bar No. 0091409) — Local counsel

   • Firm/office: Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, Cleveland, OH (jfriedman@calfee.com)
   • Role: Signed the defendant's final proposed constructions and evidence (Feb. 25, 2025) and appears on all NEFs; handles the Ohio-side practice before Judge Brennan and Magistrate Judge Parker.

Notes and caveats

• No in-house counsel identified. Public docket materials I reviewed (Justia docket entries; NEF mailing list for the Apr. 1, 2025 order) list only the Calfee and Radulescu attorneys above for Savant. I did not find an in-house Savant/GE Lighting lawyer appearing of record; the NEF service list is dominated by outside counsel on both sides. If Savant in-house counsel appeared later via PACER-only filings, that would not show in the sources I accessed.
• Confirmation sources: (1) Signature block of Savant's Final Proposed Constructions and Evidence, Feb. 25, 2025 (publicly accessible via USPTO PTACTS petition file 1557529), which designates Radulescu, Lahav, and Auerbach "pro hac vice"; (2) CM/ECF NEF for the Apr. 1, 2025 stay order (PTACTS petition file 1557043) listing McMillan, Friedman, Radulescu, Auerbach, Lahav, and Brown; (3) Justia docket entries (Docs. 7–8 filed by McMillan); (4) IPR2024-01357 pro hac vice motion naming this district-court case as Lahav's representative matter.
• Earlier, different representation — do not confuse: In the prior ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1220 (Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes), Savant/GE Lighting were represented by Goodwin Procter LLP (Patrick J. McCarthy, Elaine Herrmann Blais, Douglas J. Kline, Lana Shiferman, et al.), and the Federal Circuit appeal (Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. ITC, No. 22-1767) lists Goodwin counsel for GE/Savant intervenors. That was a separate forum/proceeding; Goodwin is not counsel of record in this district-court case.
• Plaintiff-side context (not requested but useful): Feit is represented by Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff (Michael S. Weinstein, Simeon G. Papacostas, Thomas M. DaMario, Carlton J. Hemphill) in the district court and Carter Arnett PLLC (Michael Pomeroy, Alexis Ritzer, Scott Breedlove) before the PTAB.
• Limitations: I could not pull the complete PACER attorney-appearance roster or verify the pro hac vice admission orders (docket numbers) individually, and the case's Aug. 14, 2025 statistical closing and current stayed status mean no merits-stage appearances are expected. All counsel named above are confirmed from filings; I found no sealed appearances affecting this list.