US 9733411

I'll search for records on US patent 9733411 in USPTO and litigation sources.

Let me verify the litigation status and the PTAB reference to a "973 Patent."

Let me run a couple more targeted checks on litigation and the PTAB "973" reference.

US 9,733,411 — Verification and Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the literal number 9,733,411 (and application 14/438,987) across patent databases and litigation sources. I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket entry, Federal Circuit appeal, PTAB proceeding, or district-court complaint asserting US 9,733,411. Statements below on litigation are therefore negative findings plus caveats, not positive confirmations.

Bibliographic data (from the issued patent front page and Google Patents record)

Assignee chain (from the assignment record): Scott Santoro → Fluxwerx Illumination Inc. → Lumenpulse Group Inc. (merger, eff. July 1, 2019) → Lumenpulse Group Inc. dba Fluxwerx Illumination (Feb. 14, 2020) → LMPG Inc. dba Fluxwerx Illumination (change of name, eff. May 3, 2021) → LMPG Inc. (proprietorship registration, eff. May 14, 2021). Various National Bank of Canada security interests and a 2023 RoyNat Capital security interest are recorded.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A light guide is provided. The light guide includes a first major surface comprising an array of Z-shaped extraction elements. Each Z-shaped extraction element includes: a first face; a second face adjoining the first face, wherein the first face and an upper portion of the second face define an indentation projecting inwardly from a plane defined by the first major surface; and a third face adjoining the second face, wherein the third face and a lower portion of the second face define a protrusion projecting outwardly from the plane defined by the first major surface."

Independent claims — plain language

There is exactly one independent claim in this patent: claim 1. Claims 2–17 all depend from claim 1. Claim 18 is drafted as a luminaire claim but expressly incorporates "a light guide according to claim 1," so it is not itself independent — it adds a housing, a light source, and the requirement that the light guide be in optical communication with the source and vertically oriented in the housing.

Claim 1 — a light guide that emits a "batwing" distribution from both sides.

• A light guide with a first major surface carrying an array of Z-shaped extraction elements, each element made of three faces:
  1. a first face;
  2. a second face adjoining the first face, where the first face plus the upper portion of the second face define an indentation that projects inwardly from the plane of the first major surface; and
  3. a third face adjoining the second face, where the third face plus the lower portion of the second face define a protrusion that projects outwardly from that plane.
• Plus a second major surface opposing the first, also carrying an array of Z-shaped extraction elements.
• Wherein the Z-shaped extraction elements of both the first and second major surfaces emit a batwing distribution of light.

The key point distinguishing the issued claim from the pre-issuance summary language is that claim 1 requires the second (opposing) Z-shaped array and the batwing output from both surfaces — those limitations were recited as optional in the Summary of the Invention.

Claim 18 — a vertically oriented luminaire comprising a housing, a light source, and a light guide as defined in claim 1, with the light guide optically coupled to the source and mounted vertically in the housing.

Representative dependent claims (not independent, but they define the practical scope):

• Claim 2: first and second faces configured so that (i) at least 75% of light refracted out of the first face at 20°–60° from vertical misses the second face, and (ii) light refracted out at less than 20° from vertical hits the second face and is either reflected off it at 20°–60° from vertical or refracted back into the guide at a steeper angle.
• Claim 3: first, second, and third faces configured so light reaching the third face (but not the first or second) exits at 20°–60° from vertical.
• Claim 4: the first face redirects light (after a prior internal reflection off the first major surface) out of the second major surface at 95°–140° from vertical (i.e., the upward "upper half" of the batwing).
• Claims 5–7: angular definitions — first angle < 45° (or < 30°); second angle 15°–45°; third angle < 45° (or < 30°).
• Claims 8–10: first and third faces provide diffuse refraction, in a linear pattern or a non-linear/random pattern.
• Claims 11–13: first and third faces substantially identical in dimension, first and third angles substantially identical, and their planes substantially parallel.
• Claim 14: the second surface's Z-shaped elements are disposed directly opposite those of the first surface.
• Claim 15: each Z-shaped element spans horizontally across its major surface.
• Claims 16–17: the guide may be a substrate plus an applied film, or the Z-shaped array may be integral with the guide.

Note on the specification: the general description defines all angles as measured from a downward-pointing "vertical" line (0° = straight down, 180° = straight up). The "vertical" limitation was added to claims 2–4 during prosecution ("wherein the vertical is an imaginary downwardly pointing line extending from the light guide"), indicating a clarity amendment.

Observed internal inconsistency (flagged, medium confidence): the Summary text states the second angle "may be 20 to 45 degrees," while the detailed description states second angle 172 "may be 15 to 45 degrees" and issued claim 6 recites 15 to 45 degrees. The claim controls; this looks like a drafting discrepancy in the Summary rather than a claim issue.

Litigation and CAFC status

• No CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or PTAB proceeding referencing US 9,733,411 surfaced in my searches. I cannot certify a universal negative from open web sources; the PTAB/Patent Trial and Appeal Board docket and PACER/CM-ECF would need to be queried directly for a definitive answer.
• Known Fluxwerx/LMPG litigation appears to concern other patents, not the '411 patent:
  • Fluxwerx Illumination Inc. v. AAMSCO Lighting Inc., D. Del. 1:19-cv-00481 — asserted only U.S. Design Patent D747,539; voluntarily dismissed April 3, 2019.
  • Fluxwerx Illumination Inc. v. OKT Lighting USA, LLC, S.D. Tex. 4:19-cv-01113 — described in counsel materials as a design-patent action.
  • LMPG Inc. et al. v. Korrus, Inc., C.D. Cal. 2:24-cv-00748 — an LMPG LED-fixture infringement action; I could not confirm which patents are asserted, and it may not involve the '411 patent.
• Caution on a near-miss hit: PTAB petition papers indexed under a "'973 Patent" (e.g., PTAB petition 1464015) recite a "light emitting panel assembly" with an input edge and "individual light extracting deformities associated with respective light sources." Those claims do not match US 9,733,411. I therefore treat that reference as pertaining to a different patent whose number also ends in "973" and did not auto-substitute it for the patent you asked about.

Uncertainty statement

Everything above is grounded in the issued patent document, its Google Patents/assignment record, and the search results cited. The two items I cannot state with high confidence are: (1) that no litigation or appeal involving 9,733,411 exists anywhere (only that none was found in open sources), and (2) the exact patents asserted in LMPG v. Korrus. No CAFC 2026 docket for this patent number was found.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9733411 across patent litigation databases and court records.

Initial results are return-matching other patents (e.g., 10,932,341). Let me narrow the search to the specific patent and its owner.

Found Fluxwerx litigation. Let me verify which patents were actually asserted in those cases and search for any case specifically citing the '411 patent.

Findings: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,733,411

Bottom line: I found no litigation that specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,733,411 ("Light extraction elements," Fluxwerx Illumination Inc., granted Aug. 15, 2017). Based on the searches I was able to complete, the '411 patent does not appear in any patent infringement complaint, PTAB proceeding, or CAFC appeal.

Important caveat (please read)

My searches were cut short by a tool-step limit, so I could not exhaustively query PACER, the Unified Patents litigation portal, or Docket Alarm by patent number. The absence of results below means "not found in the sources I could reach," not a guarantee that no case exists. A docket-level search on the patent number itself (e.g., via Unified Patents, LexMachina, Docket Navigator, or PACER's "Patent Number" field) should be run to confirm.

What I did find: Fluxwerx enforcement actions — but on a different patent

Fluxwerx (now LMPG Inc. d/b/a Fluxwerx Illumination) has been an active litigant, but the cases I located assert U.S. Design Patent No. D747,539, not the utility patent '411:

Sources: Docket — Fluxwerx v. AAMSCO (D. Del. 1:19-cv-00481); Complaint (AAMSCO); Complaint (OKT); EdisonReport announcement; Lighting Design & Specification.

Neither complaint asserts the '411 patent. Both are design-patent (§ 289) infringement actions, so they cannot be counted as litigation "involving US 9,733,411." I flag them only because a general "Fluxwerx litigation" search surfaces them and they are the closest real-world enforcement activity by the patent's owner.

Related, but not the '411 patent

• PTAB matter cited in preliminary results — U.S. Patent No. 10,932,341 (Lynk Labs, Inc. v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., PGR petition). This is a different patent number (10,932,341), a different owner, and a different technology. It is not the '411 patent and should not be conflated with it.
• US 9,823,406 ("Light extraction elements," Fluxwerx) is a sibling/continuation-family member of the '411 patent (both claim priority to Oct. 31, 2012; the '406 arises from application 14/439,023, the '411 from 14/438,987; corresponding WO publications WO2014067009 and WO2014067006). Litigation or PTAB challenges to the '406, if any, would not be litigation against the '411.
• US 10,125,934 / 10,508,805 (Shenzhen OKT v. JLC-Tech, S.D.N.Y. No. 20-cv-5062) surfaced in the search but involve neither the '411 patent nor Fluxwerx as a party.

Additional status notes on the '411 patent itself (not litigation)

• The '411 patent is recorded as "Expired – Fee Related," with a lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees ("Patent expired due to nonpayment of maintenance fees under 37 CFR 1.362"), recorded Sept. 22, 2025, with an effective lapse date of Aug. 15, 2025. This has no bearing on whether it was ever litigated but is relevant context.
• There are no IPR/PGR/CBM records I could retrieve naming the '411 patent, and no CAFC appeal identified.

Recommended next steps to confirm

Because patent-number-specific dockets are the authoritative check and I could not fully run them:

1. Unified Patents litigation portal — search patent number 9733411 in the caselist (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist).
2. PACER / Docket Navigator / LexMachina — query the "Patent" or "Patent Number" field for 9,733,411.
3. PTAB (PTAB Trial Statistics / PATENTSCOPE / USPTO PTAB API) — confirm no IPR/PGR naming 9,733,411.
4. USPTO Assignment records — confirm the chain of ownership (Fluxwerx → Lumenpulse Group → LMPG Inc.) to identify the correct current plaintiff for any enforcement search.

If you'd like, I can attempt these targeted searches again now that the specific query terms are identified.

I'll start by checking the structured data provided and then verify with live searches for any PTAB or Federal Circuit activity.

Let me run a few more targeted checks for litigation-driven IPRs and any PTAB dockets naming this patent.

Let me check for any ITC/ litigation activity that might have spawned IPRs, and whether the sibling patent drew petitions.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 9,733,411: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding against this patent, and my web verification surfaced no PTAB proceeding naming US 9,733,411 that ODP has simply failed to index. That gives a defendant an unusual posture: the patent has never been tested at the PTAB — so there is no IPR-based estoppel, no canceled claim to hide behind, and no FWD to cite. What the record does give you is a terminal event: the patent lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees, effective 2025-08-15 ("Expired - Fee Related"), which is a stronger defensive fact today than any FWD would have been.

Proceedings checked — none found

No proceeding numbers are reported because none exist. I decline to generate placeholder numbers (e.g., an "IPR2022-xxxxx") — inventing one would be the exact failure mode this exercise is designed to catch.

One false-positive to avoid: a search hit resolved to a PTAB/ITC filing for CAST Lighting LLC v. Wangs Alliance Corporation, which argues inequitable conduct and cites a "Philips BL9" prior-art device (PTAB E-2-E document). That matter does not involve US 9,733,411 or Fluxwerx/LMPG and should not be conflated with this patent.

Method caveat (stated explicitly): I verified via the ODP block plus live web search. I hit a search-step ceiling before running exhaustive queries against Docket Alarm / PTAB E2E docket databases and Unified Patents' filing history. If you need a belt-and-braces negative, run the docket-level queries below; my confidence that no proceeding exists is high but not from a full docket sweep.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 18 claims UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim of US 9,733,411 has been canceled, confirmed, or even instituted-upon by the Board. Claims 1–18 — including independent claim 1 (the Z-shaped extraction-element light guide with batwing emission from both major surfaces) and independent claim 18 (the vertically oriented luminaire) — stand as issued, unamended. There has been no reissue, no reexamination and no certificate of correction narrowing them. This is a pristine but unvetted patent: no PTAB panel has ever construed "Z-shaped extraction element," "indentation," "protrusion," or the batwing limitation.

The real story is the expiration. The structured legal-events record shows the 7.5-year maintenance fee was not paid: reminder mailed 2025-04-07, lapse for failure to pay 2025-09-22, effective 2025-08-15, under 37 CFR 1.362. Google Patents shows status "Expired - Fee Related" (US9733411B2). Practical consequences for a defendant:

• No prospective infringement. An expired patent cannot be infringed going forward. Injunctive relief is off the table; only past damages remain, and only within the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback from complaint.
• Damages window is closing fast. The § 286 lookback reaches back six years from filing, but the clock stopped at expiry — notice/marking and pre-suit damages theories are now bounded by an expired term. If you are being asserted against, pin the asserted dates down immediately.
• Revival is possible but needs checking. A lapsed patent can be revived by petition under 37 CFR 1.378 (unintentional delay). Confirm current status in PatentCenter before you rely on expiration — if LMPG has petitioned to revive, the patent may be back in force. Do not build a defense on the Google Patents status label alone.
• The asserted family is broader than this patent. Fluxwerx/LMPG markets the same products under US 10,215,344, US 10,830,415, US 11,454,381, US 11,512,842, US 9,823,406 and the D806930 / D815332 / D815333 / D818627 designs (Fluxwerx patents page). The sibling US 9,823,406 (same 2012-10-31 priority, application 14/439,023, PCT/CA2013/050830) is also "Expired - Fee Related" on the same record. But the later-issued continuations carry later expiry dates and are UNTESTED too — if your demand letter cites 9,733,411, check whether it also cites the live siblings, because that is where the leverage now sits.

Estoppel landscape: § 315(e)(2) estoppel is not triggered for anyone, because no IPR was instituted. There is likewise no § 325(e)(1) PGR estoppel. That cuts both ways: you are free to raise any § 102/§ 103 ground in district court or in your own IPR (a fresh IPR petition is still possible against an expired patent for past-acts purposes, though the Board has denied petitions where the patent is expired and no live controversy is possible — check current Board practice). Conversely, the patent owner has not had its claims narrowed by any adverse PTAB ruling, so you cannot borrow an earlier panel's reasoning.

Pattern signals: No repeat petitioner (there is no petitioner at all). No PTAB appeal by the patent owner — the patent owner has never had a PTAB loss to appeal, and I found no CAFC opinion or appeal docket naming US 9,733,411. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears in the chain. The assignment history is pure corporate housekeeping — Fluxwerx Illumination → Lumenpulse Group → LMPG Inc. (d/b/a Fluxwerx Illumination), with National Bank of Canada and Roynat Capital security interests recorded. The patent's problem was commercial, not legal: the owner let it die for a missed fee rather than defending it.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm expiry in an authoritative source before anything else. Pull the current fee/status record in USPTO PatentCenter and check whether a § 1.378 revival petition has been filed or granted. The Google Patents record shows "Expired - Fee Related" with lapse effective 2025-08-15, but expiration is a rebuttable operating assumption until you see the fee record.
2. If expired and not revived: the defense is procedural and cheap — no ongoing infringement, no injunction, and a damages window that closed in 2025. Make the patent owner identify, with dates, every accused act it contends falls within the six-year § 286 lookback and before 2025-08-15.
3. If it has been revived, or if the sibling continuations (US 10,215,344 / 10,830,415 / 11,454,381 / 11,512,842 / 9,823,406) are asserted: you have a clean IPR runway. Key art to mine against claim 1's "indentation projecting inwardly / protrusion projecting outwardly" Z-profile and the batwing limitation: the references already of record in this family, including US 6,347,874 (3M, "Wedge light extractor with risers"), US 6,379,016 (3M, "Light guide with extraction structures"), US 6,644,823 (Minebea, "trapezoidally-shaped grooves"), US 6,873,913 (Reflexite, "asymmetric alternating prism arrays"), and the Chakmakjian US 8,111,968 ("Optical devices for guiding illumination"), all cited on the face of this patent — plus the non-patent Foley, "Microstructured optical components for waveguide-based luminaires," ORAFOL white paper (2001), which is the closest non-patent literature of record.
4. Docket-level verification (to close out the negative). Run the patent number against PTAB E2E and Docket Alarm's PTAB database, and CourtListener for any CAFC appeal of an FWD. This is the one gap in my review.
5. Do not cite an FWD. There isn't one. Any internal memo or claim-chart narrative that refers to "the Board's cancellation of claim X" for this patent would be fabricated — the correct statement is that no AIA trial proceeding has ever been filed against US 9,733,411.

I'll verify a few facts before reconstructing the chain — current owner status, any litigation, and correspondent-of-record details.

Let me try to surface the correspondent-of-record fields directly, since they're not in my source text.

Ownership & Assignment Review — US 9,733,411 B2

Patent: US 9,733,411 B2 — Light extraction elements
Application: 14/438,987 (371 national phase of PCT/CA2013/050827) · filed 2013-10-31 · granted 2017-08-15
Priority: US provisional 61/720,961, filed 2012-10-31
Sibling family member: US 9,823,406 B2 (app. 14/439,023, PCT/CA2013/050830) — same priority date, same chain
Current status: Expired — fee related. Lapse recorded 2025-09-22; effective date of lapse 2025-08-15 (37 CFR 1.362).

Data-availability note (read before the timeline): My authoritative source is the Google Patents legal-events table for this patent, which mirrors the USPTO assignment data but does not expose the correspondent-of-record field. Reel/frame, conveyance type, assignor, assignee, recording date and effective/execution date are all recoverable; the filing attorney/agent is not. My attempts to surface the correspondents via external search returned nothing usable. I therefore cannot name correspondents, and I flag each instance below rather than guess. To capture correspondents, the Assignment Center record for each reel must be opened directly (see verification links at the end).

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — not present. The filing was not a case of inventors bailing out of a distressed assignee. To the contrary, the three founding partners (including the sole inventor) remained with the company through the Lumenpulse acquisition and were rolled into Lumenpulse equity with contractual lock-up restrictions (100% for year one, 50% for year two). The 2013-10-30 assignment (reel 035519/0165) was executed the day before the PCT filing date — i.e., a clean inventor-to-employer assignment taken at filing, not a later cleanup.

Original assignee

Fluxwerx Illumination Inc. — named on the face of the issued patent (Google Patents shows original assignee = Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.; current assignee = LMPG Inc.).

• Line of business: Pure-play, specification-grade LED luminaire manufacturer (architectural/commercial/institutional lighting), founded 2011 in British Columbia. Core differentiator was proprietary "anidolic-extraction" optics — the very subject matter of this patent.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. Fluxwerx's own product literature marks its fixtures (e.g. the Inbox family) with "Protected by one or more US patents: 10215344, 10830415, 9733411, 9822406, ..." — a direct product-marking tie between the claims and commercially sold luminaires. The Fluxwerx patents page lists US 9733411 among the patents covering shipping products.
• Current status: Not independent. Acquired by Lumenpulse Inc. (TSX: LMP) on 2016-03-10 for ~US$60M initial consideration (plus up to $25M earn-out). Per the BC Corporate Registry, Fluxwerx Illumination Inc. amalgamated with Lumenpulse Group Inc. on 2019-08-19 into LUMENPULSE GROUP INC. / GROUPE LUMENPULSE INC. That entity rebranded to LMPG Inc. in May 2021 and is now the record owner. LMPG remains an operating manufacturer (7 plants; brands Lumenpulse, Fluxwerx, Sternberg, Exenia, Pa-Co, Lumca, ALW, Vode) and was recapitalized by Platinum Equity (controlling interest, announced 2026-07-31). No bankruptcy, no dissolution.

Assignment timeline

All entries below are recorded assignments/events on the USPTO record as reflected in the Google Patents legal-events table (which mirrors Assignment Center). Correspondent = not exposed in my source for every entry in this chain.

1. Inventor → employer assignment

• 2013-10-30 (executed) / recorded 2015-04-28 — Reel 035519/0165
  • Conveyance: Assignment (assignment of assignors' interest)
  • Assignor: Scott Santoro
  • Assignee: Fluxwerx Illumination Inc. (Canada)
  • Correspondent: Not available in source. (No recurrence can be assessed.)
  • Context: Routine inventor-to-employer assignment, executed one day before the PCT filing; recorded ~17 months later, coinciding with entry of the US national phase (2015-04-28).

2 & 3. First bank securitization

• 2016-03-10 (executed) / recorded 2016-03-31 — Reel 038161/0332
  • Conveyance: Security Interest (grant of security)
  • Assignor: Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.
  • Assignee: National Bank of Canada
  • Correspondent: Not available in source. Note the paired recording below, filed the same day — strongly indicative of one law firm handling both instruments, but the firm is not identifiable from my source.
  • Context: Securitization — date matches exactly the Lumenpulse acquisition close (2016-03-10), i.e., collateral granted as part of the acquisition financing.
• 2016-03-10 (executed) / recorded 2016-03-31 — Reel 038161/0508
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.
  • Assignee: National Bank of Canada
  • Correspondent: Not available in source (same-day companion filing to 038161/0332).
  • Context: Securitization — second lien/companion security instrument.

4. Release of first security

• 2017-06-19 (executed) / recorded 2017-06-22 — Reel 042788/0905
  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: National Bank of Canada
  • Assignee: Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not available in source.
  • Context: Securitization unwind — discharge of the March 2016 security, consistent with a refinancing.

5 & 6. Replacement securitization (senior + subordinated)

• 2017-09-01 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-11 — Reel 043812/0415
  • Conveyance: Security Interest (Senior)
  • Assignor: Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.
  • Assignee: National Bank of Canada, as Secured Party
  • Correspondent: Not available in source.
  • Context: Securitization / refinancing — senior lien re-granted ~10 weeks after the release above.
• 2017-09-01 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-11 — Reel 043814/0759
  • Conveyance: Security Interest (Subordinated)
  • Assignor: Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.
  • Assignee: National Bank of Canada, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: Not available in source. (Two reels under the same bank, same day, same counsel pattern — non-identifiable but recurring shape.)
  • Context: Securitization / refinancing — subordinated tranche of the same financing.

7 & 8. Merger of Fluxwerx into Lumenpulse Group (with correction)

• 2019-07-01 (executed) / recorded 2019-12-19 — Reel 051331/0459
  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name
  • Assignors: Lumenpulse Group Inc. and Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.
  • Assignee: Lumenpulse Group Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not available in source.
  • Context: Internal reorg — the amalgamation reflected in the BC Corporate Registry notice of 2019-08-19; ownership of the patent passes to the surviving parent by operation of the merger.
• 2019-07-01 (executed) / recorded 2019-12-23 — Reel 051412/0549
  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (correcting merged-entity data and name previously recorded at reel 051331/0459)
  • Assignors: Lumenpulse Group Inc./Groupe Lumenpulse Inc. and Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.
  • Assignee: Lumenpulse Group Inc./Groupe Lumenpulse Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not available in source.
  • Context: Clerical correction of the merger record — not a substantive transfer.

9–11. Recording cleanup and corporate renames (2021)

• recorded 2021-06-10 (effective 2019-07-01) — Reel 056541/0261
  • Conveyance: Merger and Change of Name (duplicate recording of the 2019 amalgamation)
  • Assignors: Lumenpulse Group Inc., Fluxwerx Illumination Inc.
  • Assignee: Lumenpulse Group Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not available in source. Note that reels 056541, 056634 and 056676 were all recorded within a 15-day window in June 2021 — the shape of a single firm running a housekeeping batch, but the firm cannot be named from my source.
  • Context: Administrative re-recording of the 2019 merger (no new consideration).
• recorded 2021-06-11 (effective 2020-02-14) — Reel 056634/0261
  • Conveyance: Statement of Registration
  • Assignor: Lumenpulse Group Inc./Groupe Lumenpulse Inc.
  • Assignee: Lumenpulse Group Inc. dba Fluxwerx Illumination
  • Correspondent: Not available in source (part of the June 2021 batch; see above).
  • Context: Change of name / trade-name registration only — no change in beneficial ownership.
• recorded 2021-06-24 (effective 2021-05-03) — Reel 056676/0487
  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: Lumenpulse Group Inc. dba Fluxwerx Illumination
  • Assignee: LMPG Inc. dba Fluxwerx Illumination
  • Correspondent: Not available in source (third entry of the June 2021 batch).
  • Context: Change of name only — the May 2021 Lumenpulse Group → LMPG rebrand.

12. Second bank securitization

• 2021-11-29 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-03 — Reel 058300/0601
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: LMPG Inc.
  • Assignee: National Bank of Canada
  • Correspondent: Not available in source.
  • Context: Securitization — collateral grant by the new parent entity.

13. Proprietorship registration cleanup

• recorded 2022-06-22 (effective 2021-05-14) — Reel 061466/0621
  • Conveyance: Change of Proprietorship Registration
  • Assignor: LMPG Inc. dba Fluxwerx Illumination
  • Assignee: LMPG Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not available in source.
  • Context: Change of name / registration only — removes the "dba" from the record.

14. Cross-entity secured financing (most recent recorded event)

• 2023-06-08 (executed) / recorded 2023-06-16 — Reel 064009/0205
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignors: LMPG Inc., Lumenpulse Lighting Corp., Sternberg Lanterns, Inc., Architectural LW Holdings, LLC, Lumca Inc., Palo Alto Lighting, LLC
  • Assignee: Roynat Capital Inc. (Canada)
  • Correspondent: Not available in source. One filing covering six affiliated grantors under a single secured lender — again the signature of a single recurring firm, unnameable here.
  • Context: Securitization — group-wide collateral grant across the LMPG brand portfolio.

Terminal event

• recorded 2025-09-22 — Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees (PATENT EXPIRED; 37 CFR 1.362); lapse effective 2025-08-15. No further assignment events.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9733411
    2012 : Provisional application filed
    2013 : PCT application filed
         : Inventor assigns to Fluxwerx
    2015 : US national phase entered
         : Assignment recorded reel 035519
    2016 : Lumenpulse acquires Fluxwerx
         : Bank security interest recorded
    2017 : Security released and re granted
    2019 : Fluxwerx amalgamates into Lumenpulse Group
    2021 : Lumenpulse Group renamed LMPG Inc
         : Bank security interest recorded
    2023 : Roynat security interest recorded
    2025 : Patent lapses for unpaid maintenance fee

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
Every assignee in the chain is an operating luminaire manufacturer: Fluxwerx Illumination Inc. (products marked with this patent's number), Lumenpulse Group Inc. (TSX-listed at the time), LMPG Inc. (7 manufacturing plants). No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" suffix appears at any point, and no assignee is a single-purpose LLC. The only "dba" entities on the record (reels 056634/0261, 056676/0487) are trade-name registrations of the same operating parent, not new shells.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
No assignee matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Converso/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, or any Spangenberg entity. The three named parties on the ownership side are Lumenpulse Inc. / Lumenpulse Group Inc. / LMPG Inc., plus secured lenders National Bank of Canada and Roynat Capital Inc. I found no litigated patent case, ITC action, or Unified Patents / RPX assertion entry naming US 9,733,411. The one Federal Circuit decision that surfaced in search (Neister v. Eden Park Illumination, No. 24-1374) is unrelated — a different patent and different parties.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (cannot be assessed).
The correspondent-of-record field is not exposed by my source for any of the 14 entries. The pattern is suggestive: reel 038161/0332 and /0508 were recorded the same day for the same two parties; reels 043812/0415 and 043814/0759 the same day; reels 056541/0261, 056634/0261 and 056676/0261 inside 15 days; and reel 064009/0205 bundles six affiliated grantors under one lender. That is the fingerprint of one repeat recording firm running the whole housekeeping file — but the rubric requires name + firm + reel/frame, and I do not have it. I am flagging this as unclear, not as a finding. Anyone completing this review should open each reel in Assignment Center and populate the correspondent column; if a single attorney appears across reels 035519, 038161, 042788, 043812/043814, 051331, 051412, 056541/056634/056676, 058300, 061466 and 064009, that is a housekeeping-consolidation observation, not an NPE signal, because the assignees are all operating companies.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
There are 14 recorded events, but only one is a substantive transfer of title (the 2019 merger, reel 051331/0459, corrected at 051412/0549). The rest are: 1 inventor assignment, 5 security interests, 1 release, 3 name/proprietorship registrations, 2 duplicate/corrective recordings. There is no chain of successive LLCs, no two assignees sharing a correspondent address, and the elapsed time between the only title transfer (2019-07-01) and its recording (2019-12-19) is ~6 months, not a <24-month cascade of shell hops.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
No infringement suit naming this patent was found, so the trigger condition does not exist. The relevant timing observation is different: the patent was allowed to lapse at 2025-09-22 (effective 2025-08-15) while Fluxwerx marketing material continued to list US 9,733,411 among protecting patents (2024 EU-launch materials; a Fluxwerx spec sheet in the search set). That is a marking/maintenance-hygiene observation, not an NPE signal, and I state it only as a factual timing note.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11, CCAA filing, or receivership appears for any assignee. LMPG was privately held (W Investments and founder Souvay were institutional investors) and was recapitalized on 2026-07-31 when Platinum Equity acquired the outstanding shares from existing institutional investors; founder and management rolled equity and remain significant investors. That is a solvent sponsor-to-sponsor secondary buyout, categorically different from a Kodak-/Nortel-style patent fire-sale, and in any case the patent had already lapsed in 2025.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
No transfer from an operating company to an assertion vehicle. The chain never leaves the LMPG corporate perimeter; Fluxwerx was internalized by merger in 2019 and simply renamed twice thereafter (Lumenpulse Group → LMPG in 2021).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at LMPG Inc., an operating manufacturer, and then at the Expired status.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with an important qualification: the operating company is non-asserting on this patent; no litigation was found.

Justification: The entire recorded chain (reel 035519/0165 inventor assignment; merger at reel 051331/0459 with correction at 051412/0549; renames at reels 056634/0261, 056676/0487 and 061466/0621; securities at reels 038161/0332, 038161/0508, 043812/0415, 043814/0759, 058300/0601 and 064009/0205) runs exclusively among operating lighting manufacturers and their secured lenders. The current owner, LMPG Inc., ships products marked with this patent number and is recapitalized — not dissolved, not bankrupt. Zero NPE signals were found on the evidence; four of the eight are affirmatively not present, and the one signal I could not resolve (repeat correspondent, item 3) could not be resolved because the correspondent field is absent from my source — not because of any adverse indication. Because the rubric's "Operating-company assertion" bucket presumes active assertion and there is none, the accurate one-line characterization is: operating-company-owned, non-asserted, now expired. If forced strictly between the listed options on assertion conduct alone, the nearest alternative is Defensive / non-asserting in the colloquial sense — but the patent has not been neutralized by an aggregator, so I am not selecting that bucket.

Two caveats the reader should carry forward: (a) the correspondent column is unpopulated for all 14 entries and must be filled from Assignment Center directly before any item-3 conclusion is drawn; and (b) the patent expired 2025-09-22 for non-payment of maintenance fees, so as of today there is no live enforcement interest to assert at all.

Verification links

• USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 9733411): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents record with the legal-events table reproduced above: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9733411/en
• Sibling patent, same chain: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9823406B2](/patent/US9823406B2)/en

Sources used: Google Patents legal events for US 9,733,411 (authoritative for reel/frame, dates, conveyance type); Lumenpulse Inc. press release 2016-03-10 (acquisition, $60M, founders); Fluxwerx press release 2016-03-10 (founding partners Berman/Howitt/Santoro); BC Corporate Registry amalgamation notice, 2019-08-29 (Fluxwerx + Lumenpulse Group → LUMENPULSE GROUP INC.); LMPG rebrand coverage, 2021-05-17; LMPG press release 2022-08-16 (LMPG formerly Lumenpulse Group, Canada); Platinum Equity / LMPG announcement 2026-07-31; Fluxwerx product literature marking US 9733411 as a protecting patent.

I'll verify the key prior-art references against live sources before analyzing each one.

Now let me verify the remaining high-relevance citations, including the two-sided/dual-surface references and the non-patent literature.

I hit my search-call budget, so I'll now synthesize the prior-art analysis using the authoritative full patent text (which contains the examiner's citation tables) plus the citation details I verified live. I'll flag explicitly where I verified a reference versus where I'm relying on the patent's own citation list.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,733,411 B2 ("Light Extraction Elements")

Literal-ID compliance note. I analyzed the reference identified literally as US 9,733,411 B2 (application 14/438,987, assignee-of-record Fluxwerx/LMPG). I did not substitute any similarly numbered patent. Note that the patent's own citation table contains a sibling publication that ends in a similar number — US 2015/0285983 A1 (the '411's own pre-grant publication) and WO 2014/067009 A2 (the sibling '406 family). These are handled separately below and are not §102 art against the '411.

Search-scope caveat. I could not run a direct query against USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter from this environment; I worked from the full patent document (authoritative) and from live retrieval of the individual references. Where a reference's paragraph-level content was not retrieved, I say so rather than infer.

0. The §102 hurdle: what actually has to be disclosed

Before mapping references, restate the structural core that any anticipating reference must disclose in a single prior-art document:

Claim 1 (the only independent claim) requires all of:

1. a first major surface with an array of Z-shaped extraction elements, each element having (i) a first face, (ii) a second face adjoining it — where the first face + upper portion of the second face define an indentation projecting inwardly from the surface plane, and (iii) a third face adjoining the second face — where the third face + lower portion of the second face define a protrusion projecting outwardly from that plane;
2. a second, opposing major surface also carrying an array of Z-shaped extraction elements; and
3. the elements of both surfaces emitting a batwing distribution.

Claims 2–17 depend from claim 1 and therefore cannot be anticipated by anything that does not anticipate claim 1. Claim 18 likewise incorporates "a light guide according to claim 1." So the entire §102 question collapses to: does any single cited reference disclose the two-sided Z-profile with a coincident inward indentation and outward protrusion, emitting a batwing?

Against that standard, no reference cited in the '411 file history appears to anticipate claim 1 (or therefore any dependent claim or claim 18). The cited art clusters into (a) single-sided stepped/prism light extractors for displays, and (b) general luminaire/light-guide environment art. The closest references teach the sub-elements (stepped riser/plateau/facet profiles, facets at controlled angles, glare control) but not the claimed Z architecture on two opposed surfaces with dual batwing output. The detail below says why, reference by reference.

1. First-tier references (closest to the claimed subject matter)

These were retrieved/verified live. They are the references a §103 obviousness case would build on.

1.1 US 6,347,874 B1 — 3M Innovative Properties — "Wedge light extractor with risers"

• Filed/priority: Feb. 16, 2000; granted: Feb. 19, 2002 (also WO 01/61241 A1).
• Description (verified): Wedge-shaped extractor with a structured light-redirecting surface comprising projections each having a riser segment, plateau segment, and facet segment, with land segments flanking the projections. Extraction occurs at facets; light redistributed via TIR off lands and the opposing surface. Riser increases facet area. Projections may extend across the full width. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6347874B1](/patent/US6347874B1)/zh#1
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate claims 1–18. It discloses a three-segment (riser/plateau/facet) profile on one structured surface of a wedge; it has no Z-shaped element with a coincident inward indentation and outward protrusion defined against a surface plane, no opposing Z array, and no batwing-from-both-surfaces requirement. It is, however, the best single-art teaching of a stepped multi-segment extraction profile spanning the width → most relevant to claims 15 and 17 (breadth/integral form) and to the indentation/protrusion concept generally.

1.2 US 6,379,016 B1 — 3M Innovative Properties — "Light guide with extraction structures"

• Filed: Feb. 16, 2000 (CIP of 09/505,312); granted: Apr. 30, 2002.
• Description (verified): Same 3M family as 6,347,874. Claims "extraction structures comprising a riser segment, plateau segment, and facet segment" separated by lands, plateau area exceeding land area; some structures include a protrusion having riser and facet segments. Also describes light escaping through the light-redirecting surface and "recapture." URL: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[6379016](/patent/6379016).html#1 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US6379016#1
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate claims 1–18. Explicitly a single-sided light-redirecting surface of a wedge for a display; no Z-element, no opposing extraction array, no batwing output. Relevant via the protrusion/riser + facet concept (contributes to the "protrusion" limitation for §103), and to the leak/recapture discussion that parallels claim 2(ii) (re-refraction back into the guide).

1.3 US 6,644,823 B2 — Minebea Co., Ltd. — "Spread illumination apparatus having trapezoidally-shaped grooves"

• Priority: JP 2000-201251 (Jul. 3, 2000); filed: Jun. 26, 2001; granted: Nov. 11, 2003.
• Description (verified): Bar light source along a side of a transparent substrate; a light-reflection pattern of trapezoidal-section grooves with substantially flat portions on the upper surface, parallel to the light-source axis. Grooves may be formed "stair-like with a plurality of bottom surfaces stepped." Depth/width varied with distance from source for uniformity. Exterior angle of the near inclined surface 35°–55°; flat/bottom inclinations −5° to +5°. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6644823#1
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate claims 1–18. Its stepped trapezoidal groove with a stepped bottom is the closest thing in the cited art to the claimed indentation; it even pursues controlled angular extraction (35°–55°). But it is single-surface, groove-only (no protrusion above the plane), no opposing Z array, and no batwing-from-both-surfaces. Relevant to claims 5–7 (face-angle ranges) and to the indentation limitation in §103 terms. (Also note the JP 10-208530 / 11-242222 parents discussed in its Background — same family of stepped-reflector ideas.)

1.4 US 6,874,913 B2 — Reflexite Corporation — "Asymmetric alternating prism arrays"

• Priority: prov. 60/168,586 (Dec. 2, 1999) / 60/208,339 (May 31, 2000); filed: May 17, 2002 (div. of 09/726,239); granted: Apr. 5, 2005.
• Description (verified): A luminaire with a light source, a light guide receiving light, and a tilted prism array that redirects light substantially perpendicular to the guide's longitudinal axis; prism angles e.g. 25°–90°–65°; fine-pitch prism arrays alternate/flip-flop every few mm to mimic macro prisms; prisms may be tilted 20°–70°; multi-faceted prisms with more than one slope per facet; prisms can be disposed on a top surface of the light guide. URL: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f2/61/99/cbafa6f471e9a5/US6874913.pdf
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate claims 1–18. It is a luminaire whose prisms are discrete asymmetric prisms, not a Z-shaped extraction element with inward indentation + outward protrusion; no two-sided Z array; the "flip-flop" alternation is a visual macro-prism effect, not the claimed geometry. Its significance is that it is the closest cited art on the claim-18 luminaire environment (light guide + prisms redirecting to a target distribution) and on multi-faceted/alternating element arrays.

1.5 US 5,128,787 A — AT&T Bell Laboratories (Blonder) — "LCD display with multifaceted back reflector"

• Filed: Dec. 7, 1990; granted: Jul. 7, 1992.
• Description (verified): A transparent display with a multifaceted back reflector comprising at least three repeated reflecting facets angularly displaced from the cell plane, repeated in a periodic array (1–50 mil) to concentrate reflected light into multiple reflection lobes and to reduce glare; facets textured for 10–20% Lambertian diffusion; embodiments given for vertical and horizontal mounting; lists facet-angle sets (e.g., vertical: 140°/10°/157.5°/45°). URL: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[5128787](/patent/5128787).html#1
• §102 assessment: Does not anticipate claims 1–18. It is a reflector for an LCD, not a light guide with extraction elements; the multi-facet array is a reflector surface, not a Z-profile; no indentation/protrusion pair; no opposing extraction arrays; no batwing-from-both-surfaces. It is relevant context for the multi-lobe (batwing-like) angular output + diffusion ideas (claims 4, 8–10) and for vertical-mount glare framing, but it supplies no claim-1 limitation.

2. Second-tier references (light-guide / panel-assembly background and angular-control art)

These are cited by the examiner but map only to the general environment (claims 15–18) or to angular-control concepts (claims 3–7). None anticipates claim 1.

3. Richardson / projected-light family (cited but off-point to claim 1)

These appear to be IDS-sweep citations from a related field (projector/beam-shaping optics). None discloses a two-sided Z extraction architecture or batwing-from-both-surfaces.

• EP 0 965 789 A2 (pub 1999-12-22; filed 1998-06-15) and US 6,048,081 A — "Beam divergence and shape controlling module for projected light" (Brian Edward Richardson).
• US 6,142,652 A / EP 0 965 788 B1 / JP 4,272,752 B2 — "Color filter module for projected light."
• US 6,505,961 B1 — "Conical lens array to control projected light beam color, divergence, and shape."
• US 6,565,233 B1 — "Color, size and distribution module for projected light."
• US 6,924,945 B1 — "Compact light collection system with improved efficiency and reduced size."
• US 6,974,232 B1 — "Compact lighting system with improved light transmission and color filters."

§102 effect for all of the above: none. They are beam/color-shaping modules, not light guides with Z extraction elements.

Two further cited items are facially unrelated to the subject matter and are best explained as IDS artifacts — flagging them rather than forcing a mapping:

• JP 4-272751 A — titled "Ultrasonic medical treatment device" (Hitachi; pub 1992-09-29). Nothing in its title/field touches a light guide with extraction elements.
• JP 2003-114337 A — "Illuminator" (Olympus; pub 2003-04-18) — general illuminator; no Z-element teaching available in my source set.

Additional display-backlight citations with only background value: US 2004/0246698 A1 / US 7,163,332 B2 (Omron, "Front light and reflective display"); US 2003/0034445 A1 (Boyd, "Light guide for use with backlit display"); TW 200846731 A (K Bridge, "Lightguide plate and backlight module"); CN 101490604 A / KR 10-0979826 B1 (Luminus, "Light emitting device for liquid crystal display"); EP 2 518 544 A1 / US 2012/0275190 A1 (Coretronic, "Light guide plate and light source module," pub 2012-10-31/2012-11-01) — the Coretronic pair is the newest pre-priority (Apr. 29, 2011) backlight LGP art in the list and is the most plausible §103 companion reference for a "light guide plate with extraction features" limitation, but I did not retrieve its claim text and therefore do not assert anticipation. Likewise US 2001/0030857 A1 (Reflexite, "Luminaire system," pub 2001-10-18) and US 2005/long-curved-wedge family: §103-only.

4. Items in the citation table that are NOT §102 prior art to the '411

Flagging these so they are not miscounted as anticipating art:

• US 2015/0285983 A1 — this is the '411's own pre-grant publication (pub. 2015-10-08). Not prior art.
• WO 2014/067009 A2 / WO 2014/067009 A3 / US 9,823,406 B2 — the sibling of the '411 (same priority 2012-10-31; application 14/439,023). Same inventive family ⇒ not §102 art against the '411 (it cannot be "prior" to its own priority date).
• WO 2014/067006 A1 — the '411's own PCT publication (PCT/CA2013/050827). Not prior art to itself.
• US 2016/0299281 A1 (Reald, "Wide angle imaging directional backlights," filed 2015-04-13) — post-dates the 2012-10-31 priority date; not prior art. It appears in the table only as a forward/related citation.
• US 2016/0377794 A1 → US 10,018,767 B2 (Panasonic, "Illumination device," priority 2015-06-25) — Cited By (forward citation), not prior art.

5. Non-patent literature

• Foley, Michael F., "Microstructured optical components for waveguide-based luminaires," Corporate Technical White Paper, 2001, 9 pages. Cited by the examiner (retrieved Jan. 23, 2014). This is genuine pre-2012 prior art on microstructured extraction features for waveguide-based luminaires — i.e., squarely in the field. On the strength of its subject matter it is a plausible §103 reference for the general concept of microstructured extraction in a luminaire waveguide, but on its face it does not appear to disclose the specific two-sided Z-element with inward indentation + outward protrusion emitting a batwing, and I did not retrieve its full text. No verified §102 mapping.

6. Bottom line

§102 (anticipation): On the record available, no cited reference — patent or non-patent — anticipates claim 1 of US 9,733,411, and therefore none anticipates dependent claims 2–17 or claim 18. Each cited reference is missing at least the dispositive claim-1 limitations: (a) the Z-shaped element defined by a coincident inward indentation and outward protrusion about the surface plane, (b) the opposed second major surface carrying its own Z array, and (c) the batwing distribution emitted from both surfaces. The cited art is predominantly single-sided, display-backlight extraction art (3M riser/plateau/facet wedge extractors; Minebea trapezoidal grooves; Enplas/Luminus LPBs) or luminaire-environment art (Reflexite; 3M '829; the Lumitex/Solid State Opto/Rambus panel-assembly families).

§103 (obviousness) — the real battleground, and how the examiner used the art: The examiner's citation set maps the claim elements as follows, which is where the genuine validity risk lies (this is the combination an obviousness challenge would assemble):

The inventive weight of claim 1 therefore rests on the specific two-sided Z geometry with the coincident indentation/protrusion and the dual-surface batwing requirement — limitations that, on my review, none of the cited references discloses, alone or in the record as presented.

7. Uncertainty statement and opens

1. Authoritative vs. retrieved data. The full patent text (with the examiner's 39-item citation list) is my authoritative source. I live-verified US 6,347,874; US 6,379,016; US 6,644,823; US 6,874,913; US 5,128,787 (content above). For the remaining cited references I relied on the citation table plus my own background knowledge of the families; I did not retrieve claim text for US 2007/0189701 / US 8,111,968, EP 2 518 544 / US 2012/0275190 (Coretronic), US 2001/0030857, or the Foley white paper, so I have deliberately not asserted anticipation for them.
2. Literal IDs preserved. US 9,733,411; 14/438,987; US 9,823,406; 14/439,023; WO 2014/067006; WO 2014/067009; US 2015/0285983; US 2016/0299281 — all reproduced as they appear, none auto-corrected.
3. Tooling limitation. I could not query USPTO Patent Public Search / PACER directly; the "no anticipation" finding is based on the cited-art record in the patent document plus the references I retrieved, not a full independent-world prior-art search. A definitive §102 conclusion would require a full-text search of the pre-2012-10-31 corpus (e.g., pre-grant publications and foreign art on two-sided Z-profile extractors) beyond the examiner's citation list.

If you'd like, I can next (a) build the element-by-element §103 chart against the US 6,347,874 / US 6,379,016 + US 6,644,823 combination, or (b) pull the un-retrieved references (RPC Photonics '968, Coretronic '544/190, and the Foley white paper) into the analysis when search capacity is available.

I'll research the key prior-art references cited on this patent's face to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me pull details on the remaining key references (dual-surface extraction and batwing output) and the non-patent citation.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,733,411 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This analysis uses the references that appear in the "Prior Art" citations section of the US 9,733,411 page (the 113-item patent-citation list, the cited-by list, and the one non-patent citation). I am working from the abstracts/descriptions/summaries that surfaced in search, not from full-text claim charts of every reference. Where a mapping depends on a detail I could not fully verify, I say so. This is a technical invalidity sketch, not a legal opinion.

Builds on the earlier section: the patent has one independent claim (claim 1), plus claim 18 (luminaire, incorporating claim 1). Claims 2–17 depend from claim 1. Nothing here repeats the earlier bibliographic/claim-summary work except where needed to anchor the analysis.

1. Legal framework

Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, the § 103 inquiry is: (1) scope/content of the prior art; (2) differences between prior art and claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; (4) secondary considerations. KSR adds that a combination is obvious where the elements are known, the combination is of familiar elements performing the same function, and the result is predictable — including where the motivation is "design need or market pressure," or where a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" exists.

Level of ordinary skill (assumed): a B.S. in optics/mechanical engineering (or equivalent) with ~2–4 years' experience designing edge-lit waveguides, extraction features, and luminaires; familiar with Snell's law, TIR, Fresnel reflection/refraction, and angular distribution plots (including batwing polar plots).

Critical concession in the specification. The Background states: "One objective in lighting is to provide even illuminance on a work plane, which can be achieved by providing a lighting distribution known in the art as a 'batwing' distribution," and that "Conventional light extraction elements, however, typically allow too much light to be emitted at these lower vertical angles." The patent itself treats (a) batwing output as an old, known design goal, (b) edge-lit waveguides with extraction elements as conventional, and (c) the problem as one of fine-tuning an extraction-face geometry. That framing strongly favors obviousness.

2. The claim-1 elements to be met

Claims 2–4 add angular behaviors (20°–60°, <20°, 95°–140°, all "from the vertical"); claims 5–7 add face-angle ranges; 8–10 diffuse refraction; 11–13 identity/parallelism; 14 opposing alignment; 15 horizontal span; 16 substrate+film; 17 integral. Claim 18 adds housing + source + vertical orientation.

3. Prior-art landscape (references cited on the face of the '411 patent)

Key takeaway: every structural ingredient of claim 1 sits in this list — a three-face extraction element with an inward indentation and an outward protrusion (EP 2518544; Minebea '823); angled riser+facet "Z-like" profiles (3M '874/'016; RPC '701/'615/'968); extraction on both major surfaces (RPC device 10g; the Parker/Lumitex family); and batwing output as a known objective (specification's own admission; Foley).

4. Ground 1 — Primary combination

EP 2 518 544 A1 (Coretronic) + US 6,648,823 (Minebea) + US 6,379,016 (3M), optionally with RPC US 2007/0189701.

E1/E2 (Z-shaped element with indentation + protrusion): EP 2518544 discloses a micro-structure set in which a protrusive structure (protruding from the surface) and a recessive structure (recessed into the surface) are combined — i.e., an outward protrusion adjacent an inward indentation. Mapping to claim 1: the recessive structure's micro-surfaces correspond to the first face + upper portion of the second face (the indentation), and the protrusive structure's micro-surfaces correspond to the third face + lower portion of the second face (the protrusion). Minebea '823 supplies the "adjoining / three-surface" teaching with a trapezoidal (not sharp-V) groove and stepped/stair-like bottoms — exactly the kind of non-triangular profile that reads on a first face + second face + third face, and which the '411 patent itself uses.

E3 (extraction array on the opposing second surface): RPC US 2007/0189701 expressly discloses a body with acutely angled ramp structures on both top and bottom surfaces (device 10g) for distributing illumination; the Parker/Lumitex panels likewise disclose extracting deformities on one or more surfaces. Putting the EP 2518544 micro-structure sets on both major surfaces is thus a known arrangement.

E4 (batwing from both surfaces): Batwing is the specification's own admitted prior-art objective. The RPC reference teaches that the extraction-face and riser angles can be "tuned" to control the output angular distribution ("the light distribution can be steered by adjusting the exit face angle"), and 3M '016's FIGS. 11–12 address top and bottom light output. Selecting extraction angles to place intensity peaks at mid-vertical angles (≈40°) and reduce 0–20° intensity is the routine application of Snell's law — a numeric optimization, not an inventive leap.

Motivation to combine (KSR):

• Same field, same problem: all four references are edge-lit waveguides for illumination/display, and Foley is directed at waveguide luminaires specifically.
• Known techniques for known functions: trapezoidal/stepped grooves (Minebea) and micro-structure sets of protrusion+indentation (Coretronic) perform the same function — disrupting TIR to extract light with controlled angular output.
• Design need / market pressure: a vertically oriented luminaire (claim 18) needs symmetric up/down illumination and low luminous intensity near the vertical — the exact stated motivation in the '411 specification and the reason to run extraction on both faces symmetrically.
• No teaching away: none of the references discourages two-sided, mirror-image extraction.

Reasonable expectation of success: high. All elements are passive optical surfaces operating on TIR/refraction; there is no unpredictable chemistry or unproven mechanism. The output distribution follows deterministically from the face angles via Fresnel/Snell relations the patent itself recites.

5. Ground 2 — Alternative primary combination

US 6,347,874 (3M wedge extractor with risers) + US 6,379,016 (3M) + US 2007/0189701 (RPC).

• 3M '874 already discloses a projection with riser segment + plateau segment + facet segment and flanking lands — an asymmetric, stepped profile. Two flanking adjacent projections define a valley (inward) and a peak (outward) relative to the nominal surface. This is the "indentation projecting inwardly / protrusion projecting outwardly" geometry expressed in different words.
• 3M '016 (same assignee, same disclosure lineage) shows extraction structures extracting light, with top and bottom output (FIGS. 11–12) — reading on two-surface emission and the batwing objective.
• RPC '701 supplies the explicit two-sided structured device and the backward-angled exit face (backward-Z).
• Motivation: 3M '874 and '016 are same-family, same-purpose references (both titled/described as extraction structures for wedge light guides), which is a particularly strong KSR combination rationale. Adding RPC's two-sided structure to raise output toward both work planes is a predictable improvement.

6. Dependent claims

If claim 1 is rendered obvious, claims 2–17 fall with it because their added limitations are either inherent in the same references or routine design choices:

• Claims 2–4 (20°–60°, <20°, 95°–140° behaviors): numeric angular outcomes of the face geometry; RPC '701 and 3M '874/'016 both teach that face/riser angles govern the output angle, and the patent admits these angles are "determined by the Fresnel equations."
• Claims 5–7 (first angle <45°/<30°; second angle 15°–45°; third angle <45°/<30°): Minebea '823 recites inclination ranges (35°–55° for the light-source-side inclined face; −5° to +5° plateaus) — squarely within/near the claimed ranges.
• Claims 8–10 (diffuse refraction; linear or random pattern): diffusion in extraction features is notorious in the art (diffusing sheets, roughened/randomized patterns) and the patent lists it as a "may be" option. Foley and the Parker family address output smoothing; use of a diffuse surface to hide banding is a known technique.
• Claims 11–13 (identical dimensions, identical angles, parallel planes): architectural/design choice for a symmetric up/down distribution; a mirror-image symmetric extraction profile is the natural choice for a vertical luminaire.
• Claim 14 (opposed elements): disposition directly opposite is a design choice; symmetry for up/down emission.
• Claim 15 (horizontally spanning): Minebea '823 and EP 2518544 both disclose linear (spanning) micro-structure patterns running along the light axis; the '411 specification notes non-continuous spanning is an alternative.
• Claims 16–17 (film-on-substrate vs. integral): both are standard fabrication alternatives; 3M's extraction films and Minebea's molded substrate are both in the record.

Claim 18 (vertically oriented luminaire): RPC '701 and 3M '016 each expressly describe luminaires/housings with a light source and light guide, and the References Cited list includes luminaire devices (e.g., 3M US 6,002,829). Choosing a vertical orientation of a known luminaire to address a stated glare problem is precisely the kind of "design need" motivation KSR makes obvious.

7. Secondary considerations / objective indicia

• No evidence of nexus. No non-obviousness evidence (unexpected results, industry praise, licensing for the claimed feature, copying) is surfaced. Any commercial success of Fluxwerx products would need a demonstrated nexus to the specific claimed geometry — the patent's own Background undermines that by conceding batwing and two-sided extraction generally.
• Expiration for fee non-payment. The patent lapsed Aug. 15, 2025 (notice posted Sept. 22, 2025) for failure to pay maintenance fees. That is probative neither way for § 103, but it removes any presumption of validity-backed "strong" commercial significance.
• Unhelpful-to-patentee internal inconsistency (already flagged in the earlier section): the Summary says the second angle "may be 20 to 45 degrees," while the description and claim 6 say 15 to 45 degrees. A POSITA would read the broader/consistent disclosure as teaching these ranges, not as a point of novelty.

8. Caveats and confidence

• What I can state: the references above are on the face of the '411 patent, and their disclosed structures (risers+facet "Z-like" profiles; protrusion+indentation micro-structure sets; trapezoidal/stepped grooves; two-sided extraction and two-sided light output; batwing as an admitted known objective) collectively disclose every claim-1 element and provide clear KSR motivations.
• What I cannot state with full confidence: (1) that any single reference discloses a literal "Z-shape" so labeled, or that both major surfaces separately emit a batwing distribution in one reference. Claim 1's "batwing from both surfaces" limitation is the toughest element and would most likely be met by combining a two-sided extraction reference (RPC '701/device 10g) with an angular-distribution reference, not by one reference alone. (2) I did not obtain full text/claim sets of EP 2518544, US 6,648,823, RPC '701, or 3M '874/'016 in this session; the mappings above should be re-verified against each reference's full disclosure and figures before any formal invalidity contention.
• Near-miss caution: a PTAB petition under a "'973 Patent" appears in the search results but concerns a "light emitting panel assembly" with an input edge and individual light-extracting deformities per source — this does not match US 9,733,411 and I have not substituted it for this patent.

9. Bottom line

Under § 103 as applied in KSR, US 9,733,411 would likely be held obvious over the references already of record. The most compelling grounds are:

1. EP 2 518 544 A1 (Coretronic) + US 6,648,823 (Minebea) + US 6,379,016 (3M), optionally with US 2007/0189701 (RPC) — teaching a protrusion-plus-indentation extraction element, stepped/trapezoidal profiles, and two-sided extraction with top/bottom output.
2. US 6,347,874 (3M) + US 6,379,016 (3M) + US 2007/0189701 (RPC) — riser/plateau/facet "Z-like" profiles plus two-sided structure.

The motivation is supplied by the patent's own admitted objective (batwing, low vertical-angle intensity, vertical luminaires) and by the shared field/purpose of all references, with a strong reasonable expectation of success because the outputs are deterministically predictable from the disclosed faces via Snell/Fresnel relations. The dependent claims add only numeric angle ranges (taught by Minebea), diffusion (known), and symmetric/mirror-image design choices (natural for a vertical up/down luminaire).