Invalidity dossier
US 6853151
LED retrofit lamp
Current assignee: Signify Holding BV
Added 9/23/2026, 12:48:46 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US6853151B2 — "LED retrofit lamp"
Patent number: US6853151B2 (application US10/822,579)
Title: LED retrofit lamp
Inventors: Susan J. Leong; John Kit
Original assignee: Denovo Lighting LLC
Current assignee (per listing): Signify Holding BV
Priority date: 2002-11-19 (claimed from US10/299,870)
Filing date: 2004-04-12
Publication date (grant): 2005-02-08 (pre-grant publication US20040189218A1 on 2004-09-30)
Legal status (as listed): Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2022-11-19
Other versions: US20040189218A1
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6853151](/patent/US6853151)/en
Purpose and plain-language scope
Based on the supplied text, the patent concerns an "LED retrofit lamp" — a lamp designed to replace an existing lighting unit using LEDs. The Google Patents record lists recurring prior-art keywords: led, electrical, leds, circuit board, and set forth. Taken literally, this indicates the disclosed subject matter involves LEDs arranged with electrical circuitry on a circuit board, described in the specification using "set forth" language (typical of claim/summary phrasing).
Related continuations cited in the record
The supplied text also lists later applications claiming priority to this family: US11/052,328 (granted as US7067992B2), US11/198,633 (US7490957B2), and US11/804,938 (US7507001B2). It also notes a 2011 assignment to Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., subsequent name changes to Koninklijke Philips N.V. (2016) and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. (2016), and finally Signify Holding B.V. (2019).
What this excerpt does not establish
The excerpt contains no claims, abstract, or detailed description. It therefore does not establish the actual claimed scope, the specific retrofit structures, electrical topologies, or how the LED lamp interfaces with existing fixtures. Prior-art keywords are only index terms, not findings of scope or validity. All legal-status and assignee statements are expressly disclaimed in the source as assumptions, not legal conclusions. No litigation, validity, or ownership analysis is provided here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:53:29 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6853151. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.