US 9052093

I'll search for the specific patent number and any related litigation records.

Let me check for litigation and any CAFC 2026 activity involving this patent.

US Patent 9,052,093 — "LED Lamp and Heat Sink"

Sources consulted: Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9052093](/patent/US9052093)/en), the granted-patent PDF front page (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/88/d3/10/f85b161f075633/US9052093.pdf), FreePatentsOnline (https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9052093.html), and Unified Patents portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-9052093-B2). I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket or Federal Circuit appeal naming 9,052,093 — see the "Litigation / docket" note below.

---

Bibliographic data (as printed on the granted patent)

Assignment chain (per Google Patents reassignment records)

1. Cree, Inc. (original assignee; assignment recorded 2013-03-26)
2. IDEAL INDUSTRIES LIGHTING LLC — assignment of assignor's interest, effective 2019-05-13
3. FGI WORLDWIDE LLC — security interest, recorded 2023-09-13
4. INTENSITY LIGHTING COMPANY, LLC — assignment, 2025-07-10
5. PROSPERINA VENTURES LLC — assignment, 2025-08-27

Google Patents currently lists current assignees as Prosperina Ventures LLC and Cree Lighting USA LLC. Status: Active (as listed; not a legal conclusion).

---

Abstract (verbatim)

"A lamp has an optically transmissive enclosure and a base. At least one LED is located in the enclosure and are operable to emit light when energized through an electrical path from the base. A heat sink comprises a heat dissipating portion having a first part that is located inside of the enclosure and that is thermally coupled to the LED and a second part that is exposed to the ambient environment. The second part comprises a plurality of stems connected to the first part where each stem supports a first overhang that extends over a portion of the enclosure and a second overhang that extends over a portion of the base."

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The specification's Summary of the Invention presents the claims in three independent claim groups (they map onto the three "In some embodiments…" paragraphs). I do not have the verbatim issued claim text in the materials retrieved, so the claim numbering below (claim 1, a second independent claim, and a third independent claim) is my characterization based on the Summary and Abstract, not a quotation. Treat the wording as a paraphrase.

Independent Claim 1 — The "overhang on the fins" lamp. A lamp made of (a) an optically transmissive enclosure (the glass/plastic bulb part) and (b) a base (e.g., an Edison screw). At least one LED sits inside the enclosure and lights up when powered through an electrical path from the base. The heat sink has a heat-dissipating portion at least partly exposed to ambient air, and that portion includes a plurality of fins that extend outside the lamp. The key feature: each fin has an overhang that extends over at least one of the base and the enclosure. In other words, instead of just sticking out sideways, the fins have a cantilevered "lip" that wraps vertically (along the lamp's longitudinal axis) over the bulb neck and/or the base — adding exposed heat-radiating surface area without making the lamp bulge out sideways. In plain terms: the heat sink hugs/overhangs the bulb and socket region, keeping the traditional bulb silhouette.

Dependent-claim concepts recited in the Summary include: the lamp is omnidirectional or directional; the heat sink has a heat-conducting portion inside the enclosure thermally coupled to the dissipating portion; a first overhang over the enclosure and a second overhang over the base; fins radiating generally radially from a body; the overhang extending along the lamp's longitudinal axis; each fin having a stem from the heat-dissipating body supporting the overhang; the stem extending between enclosure and base; the overhang extending approximately 5 mm beyond the stem; flexible claim options where the overhang ends are joined by a flange that reflects light from the enclosure and redistributes it near the base, versus the overhang ends being free and unsupported; the overhang conforming to the shape of the enclosure and/or base; the overhang reflecting light toward the distal end of the enclosure; the overhang covering the enclosure-to-heat-sink connection and/or the base-to-heat-sink connection; and the heat sink extending between the enclosure and base.

Second independent claim — The "dual-overhang" lamp. Same general lamp architecture (transmissive enclosure, base, LED(s) in the enclosure powered via an electrical path from the base), but the heat sink is recast structurally: the heat-dissipating portion has a first part inside the enclosure thermally coupled to the LED and a second part exposed to ambient. The exposed second part has a first overhang extending over a portion of the enclosure and a second overhang extending over a portion of the base. This is the claim reflected in the abstract. Dependent-claim concepts: the first and second overhangs are connected to a stem extending from the first (internal) part of the heat-dissipating portion; and a portion of the heat sink is disposed between the enclosure and the base.

Third independent claim — The "wider-than-the-gap" lamp. The enclosure and base together form a lamp housing, and there is a gap in that housing having a width. The LED is in the enclosure and emits light when energized via the electrical path from the base. The heat-dissipating portion of the heat sink is at least partially inside the lamp housing and extends through the gap, and it comprises a plurality of fins having a length that is wider than the width of the gap. In plain terms: the fins squeeze out through the slit between the bulb and the socket but are taller (along the lamp axis) than the slit itself, so their overhanging ends sit over the bulb and/or base — i.e., a captive/interlocking geometry that maximizes surface area with a minimal, form-factor-preserving opening.

---

Supporting disclosure of note (specification highlights)

• The heat sink 149 is preferably a one-piece thermally conductive member (e.g., aluminum), with a heat-conducting "tower" 152 and a heat-dissipating portion 154.
• For the finned embodiment, fins 1158 have a stem 1160 passing through gap 1166 (width W); the fin height H between overhangs 1162 (upper, over the enclosure) and 1164 (lower, over the base) is greater than W, and also greater than the stem width. Overhangs are described as extending roughly 5 mm in an A19-equivalent lamp.
• Optionally, the ends of the upper overhangs 1162 are joined by an annular flange 1170 whose reflective surface redirects light from near the base toward the distal end of the enclosure; the lower overhangs 1164 may be left free/unsupported.
• The overhangs also hide the adhesive joints where the enclosure and base attach to the heat sink, for aesthetics.
• The specification ties this design to a broader efficiency story: large-EPI-area LED arrays (~15–40 mm², e.g., 20 LEDs × 4 chips at ~28.8 mm²) run at lower current density, boost-converter power supply (~92% efficient), high allowable lumen roll-off (~15–20%) and high LED junction temperatures (~110–120 °C), all of which permit a small heat sink (about 20–40 cm², e.g., ~30 cm² exposed surface for a 60 W-equivalent) so the lamp can mimic an ANSI A19 incandescent form factor.

---

Litigation / docket status — explicit uncertainty

• No CAFC 2026 docket or Federal Circuit appeal for 9,052,093 was found in my searches. I cannot confirm any Federal Circuit activity for this patent.
• Google Patents displays a "Family has litigation" flag linking to a Darts-IP family record (family=49556279), which indicates some litigation exists somewhere in this patent family (WO 2014/150330 / US 9,651,239 / US 9,052,093). I could not retrieve or verify the specific cases, parties, or outcomes from that flag or from my searches, so I am not asserting any particular lawsuit.
• The Cree/CreeLED enforcement actions I did find in 2025–2026 (e.g., CreeLED, Inc. v. Promier Products, Inc. et al., N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-13851, asserting US 9,070,850; US 9,754,926; US 10,439,112; US 11,791,442; and design patents D790,486 and D892,066; and BridgeComm LLC v. Cree Lighting USA LLC, N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-04764) involve different patent numbers and do not name 9,052,093. These are noted only to show what I checked, not as evidence of litigation on this patent.
• Per the operating rules, I am interpreting the identifier literally as 9,052,093 and have not substituted any similar number.

Bottom line: Bibliographic data, abstract, and the three independent-claim families are well grounded in the authoritative patent text. The specific issued claim numbers/verbatim claim language, the exact priority date (03-13 vs 03-14), the grant date (06-08 vs 06-09), and any concrete litigation record are areas where I lack authoritative confirmation and flag as uncertain.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9052093.

Let me dig deeper with targeted searches.

Summary: No confirmed litigation specifically asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,052,093 found

I searched patent-litigation aggregators (Unified Patents Portal litigation/patent pages, CourtListener/RECAP, RPX Insight, Docket Alarm, Justia, FreePatentsOnline) and general web for the literal number 9052093 / 9,052,093. I did not find a single docketed case in which U.S. Patent No. 9,052,093 is identified as an asserted patent. Per your instruction, I am treating that number literally and am not substituting results for other Cree/CreeLED lamp patents that did appear in searches.

What the record actually shows for US 9,052,093

Important caveats (stated honestly, not as findings)

1. The "Family has litigation" flag is a lead, not a case. Google Patents' Darts‑IP banner indicates that some member of the worldwide family has been litigated somewhere. It does not identify plaintiff, defendant, court, case number, or date, and I could not resolve that family flag to a specific case in the searches performed. I cannot confirm the '093 patent itself is the asserted member.
2. Cree/CreeLED enforcement campaigns exist, but I cannot tie them to '093. Searches surfaced other Cree-family patent suits — e.g., Cree, Inc. v. Maxbrite LED Lighting Technology, LLC, No. 4:16‑cv‑06689 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 18, 2016); Cree, Inc. v. Milwaukee Wholesale LLC et al., No. 2:17‑cv‑01804 (E.D. Wis., filed Dec. 28, 2017); CreeLED, Inc. v. Star Headlight & Lantern Co., Inc., No. 6:22‑cv‑06197 (W.D.N.Y., filed May 2, 2022). I did not verify that the '093 patent appears in any of those complaints, so I am not listing them as '093 litigation.
3. Post-2025 assignment activity may signal future assertion. The 2025 transfers to Intensity Lighting Company, LLC and then Prosperina Ventures LLC are the kind of transfers that often precede assertion. However, ownership transfer is not litigation, and I found no filed case by either entity involving this patent as of today (April 26, 2026). Note also that the patent's patent term runs to 2033‑03‑14, so it remains in force.

Bottom line

As of the date of this search, no litigation specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 9,052,093 is known or confirmed. The only trace is the family-level "litigation" flag on the patent's Google Patents page (Darts‑IP family 49556279), which I could not resolve to a named case.

To close this out with confidence, the manual steps I recommend are: (a) PACER docket search by patent number in the D. Del., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., N.D. Ill., and N.D. Cal. venues where LED/lighting patent cases cluster; (b) a CourtListener/RECAP full‑text query for "9,052,093"; and (c) a Darts‑IP or Lex Machina family lookup using family ID 49556279 to identify which family member was litigated. I can run these if you want me to continue.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,052,093, starting with the chain entities surfaced in the patent's legal events.

Key finding: I located INPADOC reel/frame data for a sibling Cree patent. Let me now pull US 9,052,093-specific records and the 2025 transfers.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 9,052,093 B2

Patent: US 9,052,093 B2 — "LED lamp and heat sink"
App. No.: 13/803,841 · Filed: 2013-03-14 · Granted: 2015-06-09
Title appears on Google Patents with: "Family has litigation" flag

Source-integrity note up front. I reconstructed this chain primarily from the authoritative Google Patents legal-events record for this patent plus cross-referenced INPADOC/EP-register data for sibling Cree patents. Google Patents' legal-events view for US 9,052,093 does not expose reel/frame numbers or the recorded correspondent attorney, and my attempts to pull the Assignment Center / INPADOC record specifically for this patent returned no reel/frame-level payload before the research budget was exhausted. I therefore do not have verified reel/frame numbers for this patent, and I have not fabricated any. Where I could corroborate a reel/frame from a sibling Cree patent's INPADOC record, I flag it explicitly as not verified for this patent. The Assignment Center correspondent data — the single most diagnostic field for this exercise — is a gap in this report, not a negative finding.

---

Inventors

All four inventors executed an ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST to Cree, Inc. recorded 2013-03-26 — i.e., within 12 days of filing. This is the ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment for a corporate R&D program, not a departure event.

Unusual-pattern check — no adverse signal. There is no evidence in the assignment record of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. To the contrary, the portfolio stayed intact through Cree's 2019 lighting divestiture, and Cree-origin inventors (e.g., Progl) continue to appear as named inventors on patents whose recorded assignee is Ideal Industries Lighting LLC (see US 10,378,749, granted 2019, assignee Ideal Industries Lighting LLC). I could not determine from assignment records alone whether any individual inventor left the business at the 2019 or 2025 transactions — that data is not in the record I retrieved, and I will not infer it.

---

Original assignee

Cree, Inc., 4600 Silicon Drive, Durham, North Carolina 27703.

• Line of business: manufacturer of LED lighting and LED components (later a silicon-carbide semiconductor company). This patent is a core Cree LED-lamp patent — the specification itself describes the lamp as "a solid-state replacement for an A19 incandescent bulb" equivalent to a 60 W incandescent.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. Cree commercialized this exact form factor (A19 LED replacement bulb with a finned heat sink overhanging the enclosure/base); the patent's own Figures 1–4 and 50–65 depict the shipping lamp. This is an operating-company-origin patent, not an invention born in a licensing shop.
• Current status: Cree, Inc. divested the lighting business in 2019 and renamed itself Wolfspeed, Inc. in 2021 (exiting the lighting and LED-components lines). The lighting business continues as an operating company under Ideal Industries/Cree Lighting. Cree, Inc. itself is no longer the owner of anything in this chain — it has been out of title since the 2019 transfer.

Intermediate owner of record — Ideal Industries Lighting LLC, 1375 Park Avenue, Sycamore, Illinois 60178 (an operating subsidiary of Ideal Industries, Inc.). Still operating. It did not dissolve; it changed its name (see 2024 event below).

No bankruptcy of the original assignee or any intermediate owner appears in this chain.

---

Assignment timeline

All dates below are the recorded date per the Google Patents legal-events record unless labeled "effective." Reel/frame: not exposed by the sources retrieved for this patent. I have omitted reel/frame rather than invent it.

• Executed on or before 2013-03-14 (inventor signing) / recorded 2013-03-26

  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST"
  • Assignor: Pickard, Paul Kenneth; Negley, Gerald H.; Reier, Bart P.; Progl, Curt (individually)
  • Assignee: CREE, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed in sources retrieved. (Correspondent gap — see note above.)
  • Context: In-house inventor-to-employer assignment; routine corporate R&D capture within 12 days of filing, not a transfer of a distressed asset.

• 2019-05-13 (effective, per the UK IPO/EP register entry for sibling Cree patent EP1988576: "deed of assignment dated 13.05.2019") / recorded 2019-05-20

  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST"
  • Assignor: CREE, INC.
  • Assignee: IDEAL INDUSTRIES LIGHTING LLC
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed in sources retrieved.
  • Context: Going-concern corporate divestiture — Cree's sale of its entire lighting products business to Ideal Industries. This is a whole-portfolio bulk assignment, not an asset-stripping or fire sale.
  • Cross-reference, not verified for this patent: the sibling Cree patent US 10,034,352 shows this same Cree→Ideal transfer at Reel/Frame 049595/0001 (effective 2019-05-13). Because the recording dates for US 9,052,093 differ by a month from the sibling's INPADOC event date, I cannot assert 049595/0001 is this patent's reel; treat it as family-context only.

• 2023-09-08 (effective) / recorded 2023-09-13

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (Security Agreement)
  • Assignor: IDEAL INDUSTRIES LIGHTING LLC
  • Assignee: FGI WORLDWIDE LLC
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed in sources retrieved.
  • Context: Securitization — the portfolio is pledged as loan collateral to a secured lender. A security interest is not a transfer of ownership; absent a recorded release, it is an encumbrance on the chain. I could not locate a recorded release of this interest.
  • Cross-reference, not verified for this patent: sibling patent US 10,034,352 records the same Ideal→FGI security interest as Reel/Frame 064897/0413 (effective 2023-09-08).

• 2024-12-11 (effective) — change of name (recorded in national registers; see UK IPO entry for EP1988576)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name only (not an assignment)
  • From: IDEAL INDUSTRIES LIGHTING LLC → CREE LIGHTING USA LLC (same entity, 1375 Park Avenue, Sycamore, IL; address later moved to 9201 Washington Avenue, Racine, WI)
  • Correspondent: UK/EP agent of record at that point — Dehns (legal-address change effective 2024-10-08). This is the EP representative, not a US Assignment Center correspondent.
  • Context: Internal renaming/reorganization. No change in beneficial ownership.

• 2025-07-10 (recorded)

  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST"
  • Assignor: CREE LIGHTING USA LLC
  • Assignee: INTENSITY LIGHTING COMPANY, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed in sources retrieved.
  • Context: Transfer out of the operating company into a licensing/holding LLC. This is the first link in the 2025 cascade.

• 2025-08-27 (recorded)

  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST"
  • Assignor: INTENSITY LIGHTING COMPANY, LLC
  • Assignee: PROSPERINA VENTURES LLC
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed in sources retrieved.
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter / pre-litigation consolidation — 48 days after the prior link and 57 days before Prosperina's first identified infringement filings (2025-10-23).

No recorded assignment of any kind was found for US 9,052,093 other than the six events above. If a release of the FGI security interest exists, it is not surfaced in the retrieved record.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9052093
    2013 : Filed by Cree Inc
         : Assigned to Cree Inc
    2015 : Patent issued as US 9052093
    2019 : Assigned to Ideal Industries Lighting
    2023 : Security interest to FGI Worldwide
    2024 : Name change to Cree Lighting USA
    2025 : Assigned to Intensity Lighting Co
         : Assigned to Prosperina Ventures LLC
         : First Prosperina suits filed

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present

The patent left the operating lighting manufacturer in two 2025 hops: 2025-07-10 (Cree Lighting USA LLC → Intensity Lighting Company LLC) and 2025-08-27 (Intensity Lighting Company LLC → Prosperina Ventures LLC). Supporting evidence beyond the name:

• Prosperina Ventures LLC's own Rule 7.1 disclosure statement in Prosperina Ventures LLC v. Keystone Technologies LLC, N.D. Tex. 3:25-cv-02886 (Dkt. 2, 2025-10-23), carries the clerk's note "No affiliate entered in ECF" — i.e., it disclosed no parent, no publicly traded affiliate, and no operating relationship. That is a single-purpose-entity tell, not an inference from the word "Ventures."
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies Prosperina as a "Non Practicing Entity" with asserter category "Acquired patents" (npe.law.stanford.edu case 308515 / party record).
• Gap: I could not verify the registered-agent address or the state of formation for either Intensity Lighting Company LLC or Prosperina Ventures LLC. The finding rests on the recorded transfers plus the no-affiliate disclosure, not on naming alone.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present

The current assignee is not on the legacy named lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg). However:

• Stanford NPE Litigation Database flags Prosperina Ventures LLC as an NPE.
• Prosperina is an active multi-defendant filer on acquired Cree-origin LED patents within the window I could retrieve: 3:25-cv-02886 (v. Keystone Technologies, N.D. Tex., filed 2025-10-23), 1:25-cv-02283 (v. Kichler Lighting, N.D. Ohio, filed 2025-10-23), 5:26-cv-04418 (v. Maxlite, C.D. Cal., filed 2026), 3:26-cv-01006 (v. Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, N.D. Tex., 2026).
• Precision caveat: the asserted patents in those complaints are family/portfolio members — US 9,222,659; US 9,310,030; US 9,435,528; US 9,470,882; US 9,651,239; US 8,435,060; US 10,107,487; US 10,107,487 — not US 9,052,093 itself. I found no complaint naming US 9,052,093. The signal is at the portfolio/assignee level.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (data gap)

I could not obtain the recorded correspondent attorney or filing firm for any of the six events. This is the one signal I am least able to adjudicate, and I will not substitute litigation counsel for recording counsel. For completeness, and clearly labeled as litigation rather than assignment counsel, the following recurrent representation appears across the Prosperina campaign:

• Durst Kerridge (Cincinnati) — Paul R. Kerridge, Alexander J. Durst, Samuel J. Najim, Olivia E. Marbutt
• Kent & Risley (Alpharetta) — Daniel A. Kent
• Robert Katz — notice/AO-120 filings in the Keystone action
• Key Kesan Dallmann PLLC — Andrew S. Dallmann, in the Maxlite action

Recurrence of the same small firm group across multiple Prosperina complaints is consistent with a centralized enforcement program, but it is not evidence about who recorded the assignments. Recommend a direct Assignment Center pull (search patent 9,052,093) to capture the correspondent field — this single field would likely move this signal from "unclear" to decisive in either direction.

4. Cascading transfers — present

Two consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in 48 days (2025-07-10 → 2025-08-27), immediately preceding an enforcement campaign. The intermediate Intensity Lighting Company LLC was a pass-through holder — it appears as the "Parent Company" of ~120 Cree-origin lighting patents on the Unified Patents patent portal, with no product line. The 2019 and 2023 events were spaced years apart; it is specifically the 2025 sequence that forms the cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present

Assignment to Prosperina recorded 2025-08-27; first identified Prosperina infringement complaints filed 2025-10-23 — 57 days, well inside the 6-month window. This is the classic arrangement of a clean standing record and a chosen forum (N.D. Tex. and N.D. Ohio filings). Applies at the portfolio level; US 9,052,093 was not among the asserted exhibits I retrieved.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present

No Chapter 7/11 is associated with Cree, Inc., Ideal Industries Lighting LLC, or Cree Lighting USA LLC in this chain. The 2019 Cree→Ideal transaction was a negotiated divestiture of a going concern, and Ideal continued to operate and maintain the portfolio (maintenance-fee and renewal activity is visible through 2024–2025). The 2023 FGI entry is a lender's security interest, not a bankruptcy sale.

7. Privateering — not present / unclear

There is no evidence that Cree retained an interest in, or directs assertion of, this patent. Cree exited the lighting business outright in 2019 and renamed itself Wolfspeed in 2021; litigation is brought by Prosperina in its own name with no disclosed back-end relationship. Not present on the retrieved record.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present

The chain terminates at an asserter, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Note the inversion: Unified Patents' portal merely hosts ownership metadata for this patent (listing Intensity Lighting Company LLC / Cree Lighting USA LLC as parent entities) — that is database attribution, not an acquisition by Unified.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

Four independent signals are present on the recorded chain, at least two of them strong: the 2025-07-10 transfer out of operating manufacturer Cree Lighting USA LLC into Intensity Lighting Company LLC, followed 48 days later on 2025-08-27 by transfer to Prosperina Ventures LLC (cascading transfer + shell/licensing-entity transfer); and the filing of its first infringement complaints on 2025-10-23, 57 days after that recording (pre-litigation transfer). Prosperina's own Rule 7.1 statement in N.D. Tex. 3:25-cv-02886 discloses "No affiliate entered in ECF," and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a non-practicing entity acquiring patents for assertion. The chain does not terminate at any defensive aggregator.

Two honest qualifications. (a) US 9,052,093 itself has not, in the records I could retrieve, been asserted in any complaint — the Prosperina campaign pleads family members (US 9,651,239; US 9,310,030; US 9,435,528; US 9,470,882; US 9,222,659; US 8,435,060; US 10,107,487), so the verdict rests on assignee conduct plus the recorded 2025 ownership chain, not on an assertion of this specific patent. (b) Reel/frame numbers and recorded correspondents are not in hand for this patent — I verified reel/frame only for sibling patent US 10,034,352 (049595/0001 Cree→Ideal; 064897/0413 Ideal→FGI), which are family context and must not be entered against US 9,052,093 without verification.

Verify directly:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9,052,093; capture reel/frame and the correspondent field)
• USPTO legacy assignment index — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US9052093/en
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/keystone-technologies-llc and https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/308515

I'll research US patent 9052093 and its cited prior art references.

Let me retrieve the authoritative citation list directly from the patent documents.

Let me get the authoritative citation tables and any litigation/prior-art details.

Prior-Art Review — US 9,052,093 B2 ("LED Lamp and Heat Sink")

1. Identification of the patent (as it appears in the record)

Claim structure (from the specification's Summary and the family continuation US 9,651,239 B2):

• Claim 1 et seq. (lamp): enclosure + base + LED + heat sink whose heat‑dissipating portion is at least partly exposed and has fins each comprising an overhang extending over at least one of the base and the enclosure.
• Dependent claims: first overhang over enclosure + second overhang over base; radial fins; stem between enclosure and base; ~5 mm overhang; flange joining fin ends; free unsupported ends; overhang conforming to enclosure/base; overhang covering enclosure/heat‑sink or base/heat‑sink connection.
• Later independent claim (gap embodiment): enclosure and base form a lamp housing with a gap of width W, heat sink extends through the gap, fins have a length wider than W.

Critical date rule that governs everything below: Appl. 13/803,841 was filed on 2013-03-14, two days before the AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file provisions took effect (2013‑03‑16). Pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §102/103 therefore applies. The practical consequence is that a cited reference can only anticipate if it is:

• a patent or printed publication dated on/before ~2012-03-14 (§102(b) statutory bar), or
• a U.S. patent/application by another with an effective filing date before the applicant's invention date (§102(e)), or
• §102(a) art predating invention.

This matters a great deal here, because a large share of the references of record carry 2013–2014 publication dates and as such are not §102 anticipating references to this filing.

---

2. Scope of the prior art of record

The front page of US 9,052,093 lists a very large IDS-derived citation set — on the order of ~94 U.S. patent documents, plus foreign art (DE 102004042186 A1 (2006‑03) and EP 1058221 A2 (2000‑12)). Commercial databases (Unified Patents) index the patent family as having ~139 patent references and ~42 non‑patent literature items. Google Patents / FPO display both a "citations" list and a large "cited by" list (48+). That is a prosecution record, not a novelty opinion — most of those items were cited as background and were never applied as anticipatory art.

Below I isolate the references that are most relevant to the claimed heat‑sink/overhang subject matter, then give the §102 assessment.

---

3. Most relevant cited references

3A. References clearly predating the critical date (real §102 candidates)

3B. Post-dated–publication references whose filing dates may still make them §102(e) art

3C. References that cannot be §102 prior art to this filing

These carry 2013–2014 publication dates with no indication of a pre‑2013 effective filing date, so they are background only:

• US 2013/0242580 A1 — Twayne Designs LLC — "Methods and systems for LED lighting" — 2013‑09‑19
• US 2013/0271981 A1 — Hussell et al. (Cree) — "LED lamp" — 2013‑10‑17
• US 2013/0335970 A1 — Jokelainen et al. — "Heat sink assembly for opto‑electronic components…" — 2013‑12‑19
• US 2013/0335978 A1 — Huang — "LED lamp assembly" — 2013‑12‑19 (see note)
• US 2013/03277032 A1 — Huang — "Connection structure of LED lamp holder and heat radiation fins" — 2013‑10‑24 (see note)
• US 2013/0301260 A1 — Huang — "Illuminating device" — 2013‑11‑14
• US 2013/0307399 A1 — Kim et al. — "Lighting apparatus" — 2013‑11‑21
• US 2014/0055997 A1 — Achammer et al. — "LED lamp" — 2014‑02‑27
• US 2014/0043816 A1 — Huang — "LED lamp bulb with a retainer rim" — 2014‑02‑13
• US 2014/0085893 A1 — Sapir — "Thermally‑managed electronic device" — 2014‑03‑27
• US 8,641,237 B2 — Chuang — "LED light bulb providing high heat dissipation efficiency" — 2014‑02‑04
• US 8,653,723 B2 — Cao et al. — "LED light bulbs for space lighting" — 2014‑02‑18
• US 8,690,393 B2 — Lee et al. — "LED lighting fixture" — 2014‑04‑08
• US D690,037 S — Lee et al. — design, 2013‑09‑17

(Note: identifiers with a "/" — 2013/03277032, 2013/0335978 — are transcribed exactly as they appear in the source data; I have not normalized them.)

---

4. Bottom line on anticipation

1. No single reference of record appears to anticipate claim 1. The point of novelty in US 9,052,093 is the cantilevered overhang on each fin, i.e., a fin whose height H (between the ends of the overhangs) exceeds the width W of the gap through which the stem passes, and which wraps over the enclosure and/or the base (Summary; the "gap" claim). The pre‑2012 LED‑lamp art (Fu Zhun US 2008/0316755, US 7,434,964; Verdes US 6,948,829; Martin US 7,048,412) shows finned bulbs, but not the overhang‑over‑enclosure/base geometry.
2. The strongest §102 candidates are US 2008/0316755 A1 (Fu Zhun) and US 7,434,964 B1 (Fu Zhun), both squarely directed to LED lamps with heat‑dissipation structures and heat‑sink assemblies published well before the critical date. They are the references an examiner/infringer would first test against claim 1.
3. §102(e) art with pre‑2013 effective filing dates — notably US 8,680,754 (Premysler) and US 8,740,415 (Wheelock) — is the more likely basis for rejection of the fin/heat‑sink‑assembly dependent claims (e.g., radial fins, partitioned heat sink), but again not of the overhang limitation.
4. Most of the large citation set is background only. The 2013–2014 publications cannot anticipate a 2013‑03‑14 filing under pre‑AIA §102 absent an earlier effective filing date.
5. Common‑ownership caveat: US 9,030,120 B2 (Cree) is same‑assignee art; that does not remove it as §102(e) art to the claim as filed but is relevant to double‑patenting/obviousness‑type‑double‑patenting considerations rather than §102 anticipation.

---

5. Limitations and confidence

• High confidence: patent bibliographic data (number, application number, dates, inventors, assignee, CPC, title) — taken directly from the Google Patents record and the granted‑patent PDF front page.
• High confidence: the citation lists are large (~94 U.S. items, plus DE 102004042186 A1 and EP 1058221 A2) and include the Fu Zhun, Premysler, Lenk, Kelly, Wheelock, Sakai and Cree references identified above.
• Medium confidence: the mapping of specific references to specific claim numbers. I do not have the verbatim full claim set of US 9,052,093 in front of me; the claim mapping above is inferred from the specification's Summary of the Invention and the family continuation US 9,651,239 B2 (claim 18: "a heat sink connected to the housing portion comprising a first portion that extends through the gap in the lamp housing and a second portion that extends over the enclosure and the base"). Treat the "claims potentially anticipated" column as an analytical starting point, not a legal conclusion.
• Explicit uncertainty: I could not retrieve a complete, item‑by‑item table of all ~94 cited U.S. references (the retrievable lists were partially truncated). I also saw a "Patent Citations (5)" table (US 2008/0316755 A1; US 7,434,964 B1; US 8,680,754 B2; US 9,030,120 B2; US 2013/0242580 A1) displayed on a Google Patents page associated with the sibling Cree application US 2013/0271981 A1; I have not treated that five‑item table as the authoritative citation list for US 9,052,093, because the front page of the 9,052,093 grant itself shows a far larger reference set.
• Nothing here is a legal opinion; a §102/§103 and claim‑construction analysis requires the full intrinsic record and, given the Darts‑IP "family has litigation" flag, the litigation and any IPR record.

If you can supply the full printed "References Cited" pages (columns 1–2 of the cover page) or want me to walk the claims element‑by‑element against a specific reference (e.g., Fu Zhun US 2008/0316755 A1), I can produce a proper limitation‑by‑limitation anticipation chart.

I'll research the prior art cited on this patent's record before building the § 103 analysis.

Let me retrieve the patent's actual cited references list and related Cree family art.

Now let me examine the key cited references and the full claim text.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,052,093 B2 ("LED Lamp and Heat Sink")

Heading note on sources. The authoritative text supplied (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9052093/en) reproduces the specification and claim set, but the fetched copy does not contain the patent's Prior Art / "Patent Citations" table — the page's prior-art content that did come through is only the Google Patents keyword string ("lamp, enclosure, heat sink, led, base") and the CPC landscape. To identify the references of record I therefore pulled the citations list from the record for this same patent at FreePatentsOnline and the claim text from Justia/Google, and I flag below which items I could verify and which I could not. I have not "auto-corrected" any identifier.

---

1. Legal framework and critical date

Critical point: the application was filed two days before the AIA first‑inventor‑to‑file cutover (16 March 2013). Pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 therefore governs; the practical consequence is that pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) categories control what is prior art — in particular, publications before 2013‑03‑14 are § 102(b)/(a) art, and U.S. applications/patents of others effectively filed before 2013‑03‑14 are § 102(e) art. Nothing in the analysis turns materially on the AIA/pre‑AIA distinction, but it does bear on which of the cited items can be relied on for a printed publication versus a § 102(e) date.

Claim 1 (independent) requires, in substance: an enclosure; a base comprising an electrically conductive connector and an electrically non‑conductive housing portion; at least one LED in the enclosure energized via an electrical path from the base; and a heat sink connected to the housing portion comprising (i) a heat conducting portion extending into the enclosure and supporting the LED, and (ii) a heat dissipating portion at least partially exposed to ambient comprising a plurality of fins extending to the exterior of the lamp, each fin comprising an overhang that extends over the housing portion.

Claim 14 (independent) is the same architecture with "thermally coupled to" instead of "supports," and with the overhang limitation split into a first overhang over the enclosure and a second overhang over the housing portion. Claim 17 recites a lamp housing with a gap of width W between enclosure and base, a tower extending into the enclosure along the longitudinal axis, and fins longer than W passing through the gap. Claim 18 requires a plurality of fins each with an overhang over at least the enclosure, the overhang ends connected to a flange that reflects light from the enclosure toward its distal end; claim 19 requires the overhang to cover the enclosure/heat‑sink connection.

The characterizing (narrowest) limitations across the set are: (a) the fin overhang/lip structure; (b) the flange with a light‑redistributing function (claim 18); and (c) the fin length > gap width relationship (claim 17). Everything else — enclosure + Edison‑style base + centrally mounted LEDs + a heat sink with a tower and radial external fins — is squarely conventional in the 2008–2013 LED‑retrofit art.

---

2. The prior art of record

The references appearing on the patent's own record (FreePatentsOnline citation list for 9052093; corroborated by the Google/Justia listings) include at least the following items that are material to these claims:

Verification caveat (important): I verified the subject matter of Premysler in detail (its specification and claims are reproduced in the search results, including the hollow LED support/heat sink with fins, the central LED placement, the Edison base and the bulb‑shaped cover). For the Fu Zhun, Wheelock, Lenk, Yang, Zhang, Jokelainen and Achammer items I have the titles, dates, and assignees from the record but not their claim text or figures; I therefore treat them as art that discloses the conventional "external radial‑fin heat sink on an LED retrofit bulb" arrangement — which the '093's own Figures 42–49 and the specification itself present as the known baseline — rather than asserting specific fin‑lip disclosures I have not read.

---

3. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Claims 1–13 obvious over Premysler in view of the Fu Zhun references (optionally further in view of Cree '120)

Premysler teaches nearly the whole of claims 1/14. Its Figure 2/12/15 embodiments show: an Edison base 204/1202; a housing 206/1204/1506‑1508 containing the LED driver; LEDs 238/1242 mounted on the external faces of a hollow LED support/heat sink 222/1216/1502; and a bulb‑shaped cover 250/1514 over the LEDs. That heat‑sink body is by definition a "heat conducting portion that extends into the enclosure" and that "supports the at least one LED," and it is thermally coupled to structure that is at least partially exposed. Premysler also supplies the very design rationale the '093 relies on — placing the light emitters centrally in the envelope so that the far‑field pattern is not degraded.

What Premysler does not show is the claim‑characterizing overhang: its fins 234/406/1620 project inwardly into the hollow body, and it has no fin lip that wraps axially over the enclosure or over the base housing.

The Fu Zhun references supply the missing fin geometry. Both are LED lamp heat‑sink assemblies in which the dissipating portion comprises a plurality of fins extending radially to the exterior of the lamp body, with the heat sink mechanically seated at the lamp/base interface. That is the structure the '093 itself treats as baseline and then improves (FIGS. 42–49 vs. FIG. 1). The final step — extending each fin axially as a cantilevered lip beyond the stem so it lies over the adjacent enclosure/base — is the only thing left, and it is where the § 103 case is strongest or weakest depending on whether the underlying references show a fin that is wider than the slot through which it passes (see Ground 2).

Motivation to combine (why a POSITA would have done this):

1. Same field, same problem, same socket. All three references are self‑contained retrofit LED bulbs for Edison sockets. They are plainly analogous art (they are from the same field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the heat‑dissipation problem).
2. The '093 states the problem in exactly these terms and admits the solution space is known. The specification states that the heat‑dissipating portion "is formed generally as a disk where the distal edge … extends outside of the lamp and forms an annular ring that sits on top of the open end of the base 102," and that "a plurality of heat dissipating members 158 may be formed on the exposed portion to facilitate the heat transfer." A disk of heat‑sink material whose edge already sits over the open end of the base is an overhang in everything but name; extending that edge as fins with lips is a refinement, not a new principle.
3. The '093 articulates the precise design incentive itself: "By extending the fins 1158 in such a manner the surface area of the exposed portion of the heat sink 149 … is increased without significantly increasing the distance the fins 1158 protrude laterally beyond the sides of the lamp," and, because the stems pass through a gap of width W, "the space between the enclosure and the base is minimized to minimize the overall height of the lamp." That is the classic KSR situation: a recognized problem, a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (make the fin taller axially, make it longer radially, or both), and a design incentive (the ANSI A19/PAR/BR envelope) that points to the axial solution.
4. Predictable result. Adding fin area in the axial direction adjacent the enclosure/base increases convective surface at the cost of a small amount of axial material. There is no unexpected mechanism, no change in the principle of operation, and no teaching away.

Ground 2 — Claim 17 obvious over Premysler + Fu Zhun in further view of the conventional two‑part retrofit housing

Claim 17 adds only geometry: a lamp housing with a gap of width W between enclosure and base, a tower along the longitudinal axis, and fins longer than W extending through the gap. Once a POSITA has decided to increase exposed fin area without increasing the lamp's diameter (Ground 1, motivation 3), the relationship "fin length H > gap width W" is the necessary and inevitable consequence of passing a wide fin through a narrow slot. Under In re Rose and the design‑choice line of authority, reciting the dimensional relation between two structural elements that must cooperate is not patentably distinct absent a showing of an unexpected result. The '093 itself explains the dimension as flowing from the goal of minimizing overall lamp height.

Ground 3 — Claim 18 (and claim 19) obvious over Premysler + Fu Zhun in further view of a conventional lamp reflector / reflective flange

Claim 18 requires the overhang ends to be joined by a flange that reflects light toward the distal end of the enclosure. The '093 describes the flange's function as an optional design choice: the flange exists "to reinforce the fins 1158 and/or to modify the light distribution," and "may be provided with a reflective surface such as white optic or a specular surface." The patent's own disclosure treats reflective surfaces and reflectors in LED lamps as routine — it devotes FIGS. 15–38 and a substantial portion of the description to primary reflectors 300/400, per‑LED parabolic reflectors 500, and a reverse reflector 1200, describing the materials (Al, Ag, vacuum metallization, ESR film, Miro sheet) as known.

Combining (i) an overhanging fin structure (Ground 1) with (ii) a reflective ring at the base end of the lamp is a combination of two known elements to obtain the predictable benefit each is known to provide — more heat‑dissipating surface plus redirection of down‑light toward the distal end. The motivation is explicit in the record: the '093 says the overhangs/flange "may be used to increase the light output toward the distal end of the lamp by reflecting some light that would otherwise project toward the base 102 toward the distal end." Since the LEDs sit at the enclosure's center facing outward (Premysler; also the '093), some emission necessarily travels baseward, and any POSITA designing an A19‑equivalent omnidirectional distribution would look for a way to recover it. This is classically a KSR "known technique to improve similar devices in the same way" case.

Claim 19 (overhang covers the enclosure/heat‑sink connection) adds an aesthetic/assembly benefit — hiding adhesive flash — and follows directly from extending the lip over that joint. The specification says so: "the overhangs 1162 and 1164 cover the adhesive connection … such that any adhesive overflow is hidden."

Ground 4 — Dependent claims 2–13, 15, 16

These are traditional design‑choice territory and are unlikely to salvage patentability on their own:

• Claim 2 (omni or directional lamp): the '093 itself claims both; choosing one is a use‑environment selection.
• Claims 3–5 (fins over the enclosure; radial fins; overhang along the longitudinal axis): direct consequence of the chosen fin orientation; radial finning is the admitted prior art.
• Claims 6–7 (stem supporting the overhang; stem between enclosure and base): the stem is the only possible way to get fin material out of a narrow gap (the '093 says as much), so reciting it adds nothing beyond the geometry already needed for claim 17.
• Claim 8 ("approximately 5 mm"): a numerical dimension disclosed as the typical extension for an A19 bulb. Routine optimization with no asserted criticality is unpatentable (In re Applied Materials; In re Aller). The '093 offers no data showing a criticality at 5 mm.
• Claims 9–12 (free/unsupported ends; conforming to the base shape; covering the base/heat‑sink connection; heat sink between enclosure and base): "free ends" is the simplest possible version of the overhang (no flange) and is expressly disclosed by the '093 as interchangeable with the flanged version; conforming the interior edge of the fin to the bulb profile is dictated by the A19 envelope.
• Claim 13 / 15 / 16: recitation of the optical transmissivity already implied by the enclosure and of the stem/disposition already covered.

---

4. The counter‑arguments and what they rest on

For completeness, the strongest positions the patent owner could take:

1. No reference of record shows a fin "overhang" that extends over the enclosure or base. If that is correct — and I could not verify the fin geometry of the Fu Zhun, Wheelock, Lenk, Yang or Jokelainen references in this run — then Ground 1's final step rests on the motivation plus the '093's own admissions rather than on an express disclosure. The rebuttal would be that the '093's overhang solves a problem (surface area inside a fixed envelope) that the cited art had not addressed by that route, and that no reference suggests widening a fin so that it overhangs the housing it passes through.
2. Objective indicia. Cree's A19 replacement family (the '093 is in the same family as USD693948S1 and US 9,652,139) was commercially significant in the 2013–2015 LED‑retrofit market. If the patent owner can show nexus between the fin‑overhang structure and that success, or that others tried and failed to achieve A19‑like appearance with adequate thermal performance, that weighs against obviousness. Note: nothing in the record I retrieved establishes such a nexus, and commercial success alone in a rapidly growing market driven by LED cost curves would be weak.
3. Secondary design evidence — the '093 emphasizes that its small heat sink (20–40 cm² exposed area; ~30 cm² for 60 W equivalent) permits an A19 form factor, which is an argued technical effect. But the effect is one of degree, and the claim is not limited to a small heat sink or to any particular EPI area / drive current.

---

5. Bottom line

• Claims 1, 14, 17 — likely obvious over Premysler (US 8,680,754) in view of the Fu Zhun external‑fin LED lamp references (US 7,434,964 / US 2008/0316755), with Cree US 9,030,120 available as corroborating same‑field art. The combination supplies every claimed element, and the motivation is supplied by (i) the recognized need to increase exposed heat‑sink surface, (ii) the recognized constraint of the ANSI A19/PAR/BR envelope and the narrow gap between enclosure and base, and (iii) the '093's own admissions that the disk edge already sits over the base opening and that fin size/shape is a matter of design.
• Claim 18 — likely obvious with the addition of a conventional lamp reflector/reflective flange (the '093 itself describes reflective surfaces as standard and describes the flange's reflective function); claim 19 follows the same reasoning.
• Claims 2–13, 15–16 — obvious as design choices/routine optimization, with claim 8 (5 mm) the most vulnerable to a "no criticality shown" attack.
• Confidence: medium‑high on claims 17, 18, 19 and the dependent claims; medium on claims 1 and 14, because the case for the last step (the overhang per se) depends on the references' fin geometry, which I was unable to verify in this run for the Fu Zhun/Wheelock/Lenk/Yang items. Before relying on this analysis in a filing, the fin drawings of US 7,434,964, US 2008/0316755, US 8,740,415, US 8,752,984 and US 8,517,576 should be reviewed directly, together with the file wrapper of 13/803,841 to see which of the listed references the examiner actually applied.

Sources

• Authoritative patent text: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9052093/en
• Claim set: https://patents.justia.com/patent/9052093
• Citation list of record: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/9052093.html
• Family/continuation (US 9,652,139): https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9651239B2](/patent/US9651239B2)/en
• Premysler: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[8680754](/patent/8680754).html ; https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2245367A2/en
• Cree sibling LED lamp (US 2013/0271981): https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130271981
• Third‑party record/metrics: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-9052093-B2