UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Dee Lord
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`CERTAIN LED LIGHTING DEVICES, LED
`POWER SUPPLIES, AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1081
`
`
`
`RESPONDENT SATCO PRODUCTS INC.’S VERIFIED RESPONSE TO THE
`COMPLAINT OF PHILIPS LIGHTING UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT
`OF 1930, AS AMENDED, AND TO NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Respondent
`Satco Products, Inc.
`110 Heartland Boulevard
`Brentwood, New York 11717
`Tel. (631) 243-2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Respondents
`Robert S. Rigg
`Vedder Price P.C.
`222 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`(312) 609-7500
`(312) 609-5005
`rrigg@vedderprice.com
`
`Robert P. Lynn, Jr.
`Stephen W. Livingston
`Lynn, Gartner, Dunne & Covello, LLP
`330 Old Country Road
`Suite 103
`Mineloa, New York 11501
`(516) 742-6200
`(516) 742-5294
`rplynn@lgdcllp.com
`swlivingston@lgdcllp.com
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.13, Respondent Satco Products, Inc. (“Satco” or
`
`“Respondent”), by and through its attorneys, hereby respond to the Complaint under Section
`
`337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Complaint”), filed by Complainants Philips Lighting North
`
`America Corp. and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. (collectively “Philips” or “Complainant”),
`
`and to the Commission’s Notice of Investigation issued on November 3, 2017 (the “Notice”).
`
`Satco denies each and every allegation in the Complaint and Notice, except as
`
`specifically admitted herein. The responses below reflect the current status of Satco’s
`
`knowledge and belief regarding the subject matter of the allegations to which it responds and
`
`may be amended subject to additional or different information that may be discovered during
`
`the course of the proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 1.
`
`This complaint is filed by Complainants Philips Lighting North America Corp. and
`Philips Lighting Holding B.V. (collectively, “Philips Lighting”) pursuant to Section 337 of the
`Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco admits that Complainants filed the Complaint, which requests that the United
`
`States International Trade Commission commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of
`
`the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 2.
`
`For over 125 years, Philips Lighting has dedicated significant resources to the research
`and development of improved lighting devices. And for the past twenty-five years, Philips
`Lighting has developed pioneering technologies related to LED lighting devices. Philips
`Lighting has developed technologies used to power LEDs, control LEDs, and optimally extract
`light from LEDs. Advances like these have allowed LED lighting devices to become ubiquitous,
`revolutionizing the lighting market. Philips Lighting is a leader in the field.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 2 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 3.
`
`Philips Lighting brings this action seeking relief under Section 337 to prevent the
`unlawful importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
`United States after importation of certain LED lighting devices, LED power supplies (e.g.,
`drivers), and other components thereof that infringe the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890
`(“the ’890 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,038,399 (“the ’399 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,256,554
`(“the ’554 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559 (“the ’559 Patent”); and U.S. Patent
`No. 8,070,328 (“the ’328 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). The following chart
`summarizes the asserted claims for infringement:
`
`Patent
`
`Independent Claims
`
`
`1, 7, 17, 34, 47, 58, and 59
`1, 6, 46, and 51
`6, 10, 11, and 12
`1
`
`Dependent Claims
`14, 22, and 30
`2, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19, 35, 48, and 60
`2, 5, 7, 12, 47, 49, and 50
`
`2, 4, 7, and 9
`
`’890
`’399
`’554
`’559
`’328
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Table 1. Asserted claims for infringement
`
`Satco admits that the Complaint seeks relief under Section 337. Satco denies that it has
`
`committed any unlawful conduct by importing LED lighting devices, LED power supplies, or
`
`other components thereof and denies that any of the foregoing imported by Satco into the United
`
`States infringe any valid, enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents. Satco is without knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 3 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 4.
`
`The proposed Respondents are Feit Electric Company, Inc. (“Feit Electric”), Feit Electric
`Company, Inc. (China) (“Feit Electric China”) (collectively, “Feit”), Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`(“Lowe’s Companies”), LG Sourcing, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Lowe’s Companies
`(“LG Sourcing”) (collectively, “Lowe’s”), MSi Lighting, Inc. (“MSi”), RAB Lighting Inc.
`(“RAB”), a Satco Products, Inc. (“Satco”), Topaz Lighting Corp. (“Topaz”), Wangs Alliance
`Corporation d/b/a WAC Lighting Co. (“WAC USA”), and WAC Lighting (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
`(“WAC China”) (collectively, “WAC”).
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco admits that the Complaint identifies Satco as a proposed respondent, but denies that
`
`Satco has committed any unlawful act. Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 and, therefore, denies
`
`them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 5.
`
`Certified copies of the ’890 Patent (Exhibit 1), the ’399 Patent (Exhibit 2), the ’554
`Patent (Exhibit 3), the ’559 Patent (Exhibit 4), and the ’328 Patent (Exhibit 5) are attached to this
`complaint. As shown in the copies of the certified assignments for the ’890 Patent (Exhibit 6),
`the ’399 Patent (Exhibit 7), the ’554 Patent (Exhibit 8), the ’559 Patent, (Exhibit 9), and the ’328
`Patent (Exhibit 10), Philips Lighting North America Corporation owns the entire right, title, and
`interest in and to the ’399 Patent and the ’554 Patent, and Philips Lighting Holding B.V. owns
`the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’890 Patent, the ’559 Patent, and the ’328 Patent.
`Certified copies of the prosecution history and technical references cited in the ’890 Patent, the
`’399 Patent, the ’554 Patent, the ’559 Patent, and the ’328 Patent are also being submitted with
`this complaint (Appendices A-J).
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco admits that certified copies of the patents and file histories were submitted with the
`
`Complaint. Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 6.
`
`A domestic industry, as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) and (3), exists in the United
`States relating to the articles and/or technology protected by the Asserted Patents, through
`Philips Lighting’s investments in plants and equipment, labor and capital, research and
`development, and ongoing engineering related to Philips Lighting’s LED lighting devices and
`LED power supplies protected by the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 6 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 7.
`
`Philips Lighting seeks, as relief, a permanent limited exclusion order barring from entry
`into the United States LED lighting devices and LED power supplies that infringe the Asserted
`Patents that are imported by or on behalf of Feit, Lowe’s, MSi, RAB, Satco, Topaz, and WAC.
`Philips Lighting also seeks a cease and desist order against each of Feit, Lowe’s, MSi, RAB,
`Satco, Topaz, and WAC, directing Feit, Lowe’s, MSi, RAB, Satco, Topaz, and WAC to cease
`and desist from importing, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory for
`distribution, offering for sale, selling, distributing, licensing, or using LED lighting devices and
`LED power supplies that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. Additionally,
`Philips Lighting requests the imposition of a bond during the period of Presidential review of the
`Commission’s remedial orders.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco admits that the Complaint requests a limited exclusion order barring from entry
`
`into the United States certain products sold by or on behalf of Satco, its subsidiaries, related
`
`companies, distributors, and/or agents. Satco admits that the Complaint requests cease and desist
`
`orders prohibiting Satco, its subsidiaries, related companies, distributors, and/or agents from
`
`marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, supporting, warehousing inventory for
`
`distribution, or otherwise transferring or bringing into the United States certain LED products.
`
`Satco specifically denies that it has imported any product into the United States that infringes a
`
`valid, enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents. Satco denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 7.
`
`II.
`
`COMPLAINANTS
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 8.
`
`Complainant Philips Lighting North America Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
`its principal place of business at 200 Franklin Square Drive, Somerset, New Jersey 08873.
`Philips Lighting North America Corporation (“PLNA”) is registered to do business in the
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Commonwealth of Massachusetts and has a place of business and resides at 3 Burlington Woods
`Drive, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 8 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 9.
`
`Complainant Philips Lighting Holding B.V. (“PLHBV”) is a Netherlands corporation
`with a registered place of business at High Tech Campus 45, Eindhoven, 5656 AE Netherlands.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 9 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 10.
`
`For over 125 years, Philips Lighting has been a world-leading innovator in the lighting
`industry. Exs. 11, 13. Philips Lighting pioneered the development of high-quality, energy-
`efficient LED lighting devices and power supplies, winning the 2011 Department of Energy L
`Prize for its 60-Watt LED bulb, and Philips Lighting continues to make significant innovation
`investments to advance the LED lighting industry globally. Exs. 12, 13.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 10 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 11.
`
`Philips Lighting also offers licenses to over 1,300 globally granted patents covering
`seminal inventions in the field of LED lighting as part of Philips Lighting’s successful EnabLED
`Licensing Program, which Philips Lighting launched in 2008 to encourage adoption of LED
`technology. Ex. 14. Over 800 companies are already licensees. Exs. 14, 15.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 11 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`III. RESPONDENTS
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 12.
`
`Respondent Feit Electric is a privately held company incorporated in the State of
`California. It has its principal place of business at 4901 Gregg Road, Pico Rivera, California
`90660. Upon information and belief, Feit Electric produces abroad, sells for importation,
`imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused Products. For example, Feit
`Electric’s website describes its LED lighting devices, including LED retrofit kits and LED
`lamps. See Ex. 16.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 12 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 13.
`
`Respondent Feit Electric China is a privately held company with its principal place of
`business at Zone B, 2/F, Xinyu Building, No. 17 Huoju East Road, Huli District Xiamen, China.
`Upon information and belief, Feit Electric China produces abroad, sells for importation, imports,
`and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused Products.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 13 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 14.
`
`Respondent Lowe’s Companies is a corporation organized under the laws of North
`Carolina with a principal place of business at 1000 Lowe’s Boulevard, Mooresville, North
`Carolina 28117. Upon information and belief, Lowe’s produces abroad, sells for importation,
`imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused Products. For example,
`Lowe’s website describes LED lighting devices, including “LED lights and LED strip lights.”
`Ex. 17.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 14 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`ALLEGATION NO. 15.
`
`Respondent LG Sourcing is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lowe’s Companies. Ex. 18.
`LG Sourcing has a principal place of business at 1605 Curtis Bridge Road, North Wilkesboro,
`North Carolina 28659. Upon information and belief, LG Sourcing produces abroad, sells for
`importation, imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused Products. For
`example, LG Sourcing’s website states that it “is dedicated to the distribution of unique, quality
`products sourced throughout the world,” id., and certain Accused Products sold by Lowe’s
`Companies are marked as “distributed by” LG Sourcing, see Ex. 124.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 15 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 16.
`
`Respondent MSi is a privately held company with its principal place of business at 622
`Banyan Trail Suite 200, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. Upon information and belief, MSi produces
`abroad, sells for importation, imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused
`Products. For example, MSi’s website describes its LED lighting devices, including LED bulbs.
`See Exs. 19, 20.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 16 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 17.
`
`Respondent RAB is a corporation with a principal place of business located at 170
`Ludlow Avenue, Northvale, New Jersey 07647. Upon information and belief, RAB produces
`abroad, sells for importation, imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused
`Products. For example, RAB’s website describes LED lighting devices including LED
`downlights. See Ex. 21.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 17 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`ALLEGATION NO. 18.
`
`Respondent Satco is a corporation with a principal place of business at 110 Heartland
`Boulevard, Brentwood, New York 11717. Upon information and belief, Satco produces abroad,
`sells for importation, imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused
`Products. For example, Satco’s website states that the company’s product categories include
`LED lighting devices such as·LED lamps, and explains that Satco sells from various warehouses
`in the United States. See Ex. 22.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco admits that it is a corporation with a principal place of business at 110 Heartland
`
`Boulevard, Brentwood, New York 11717. Satco admits that it produces abroad, sells for
`
`importation, imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation certain products which
`
`Philips has accused in the Complaint of infringing one or more claims of the Accused Products.
`
`Satco specifically denies that it has imported any product into the United States that infringes a
`
`valid, enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, such as the LED lamps shown in Exhibit 22 to
`
`the Complaint. Satco denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 19.
`
`Respondent Topaz is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 925
`Waverly Avenue, Holtsville, New York 11742. Upon information and belief, Topaz produces
`abroad, sells for importation, imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused
`Products. For example, Topaz’s website states that “[o]ur LED products include PAR Series
`LED lighting, surface mount LED lighting, post top lights LED, LED T8 Linear LEDs, Outdoor
`LEDs and much more. As a result, more distributors are turning to Topaz for our unparalleled
`selection of LED lighting options.” See Ex. 23.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 19 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 20.
`
`Respondent WAC USA is a corporation with a principal place of business at 44 Harbor
`Park Drive, Port Washington, New York 11050. Upon information and belief, WAC USA
`produces abroad, sells for importation, imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation
`Accused Products. For example, WAC USA’s website describes the company’s LED lighting
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`devices (luminaries) and LED power supplies (drivers). Ex. 24. Additionally, WAC’s website
`describes WAC’s Global Manufacturing Base in Dongguan, China. Ex. 25.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 20 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 21.
`
`Respondent WAC China is an affiliate of WAC USA and has a place of business at
`No. 14, Lane 299, Bi Sheng Road, Zhang Jiang, Pu Dong District, Shanghai, China 201204. See
`Ex. 26. Upon .information and belief, WAC China produces abroad, sells for importation,
`imports, and/or sells in the United States after importation Accused Products.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 21 and, therefore, denies them.
`
`IV.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 22.
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.12(a)(12), the technology at issue relates to LED
`lighting devices, and the products at issue are LED lighting devices (e.g., luminaires and bulbs
`that use LEDs as a light source) covered by one or more of the claims of the Asserted Patents,
`and components thereof, including LED power supplies, and other components such as, for
`example, reflectors and optics.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco admits that pursuant to Commission Rule 210.12(a)(12), the technology at issue
`
`relates to LED lighting devices, and the products at issue are LED lighting devices. Satco states
`
`that the Asserted Patents speak for themselves and denies the allegations of this paragraph to the
`
`extent they purport to attribute to the Asserted Patents anything that is not stated therein, to the
`
`extent they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any claim of any asserted patent, and
`
`to the extent they purport to state that any asserted patent discloses or claims anything inventive
`
`or novel. The allegations regarding the scope of coverage of the Asserted Patents are legal
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`conclusions to which no response is required. Satco specifically denies that it has imported any
`
`product into the United States that infringes a valid, enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to answer the remaining
`
`allegations of this paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 23.
`
`The first practical LED was invented in 1962. See Ex. 27 at 3. For the next decade,
`small, low power, red LEDs dominated the industry, finding use as indicator lights. Those
`seeking to improve LEDs faced trade-offs between light output (measured in lumens) and
`efficiency. These challenges and the inability to generate white light stymied the use of LEDs
`for general illumination until the late 1990s. See generally id.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to answer the
`
`allegations of this paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 24.
`
`As brighter, more efficient LEDs became available in a variety of colors, LEDs emerged
`as a cost- and energy-efficient replacement for traditional incandescent and gas- discharge light
`sources. To utilize this new technology, manufacturers developed LED power supplies capable
`of providing power to LEDs, which operate on direct current (“DC”), from the alternating
`current (“AC”) provided by standard residential and commercial electrical systems. In addition,
`manufacturers developed LED lighting devices using LEDs, many with sophisticated optical
`systems designed to direct the light from the LEDs and to extract the maximum amount of light
`from the LEDs.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to answer the
`
`allegations of this paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 25.
`
`The widespread adoption of LED technology would not have been possible without the
`development of these new LED power supplies and LED lighting devices, many of which Philips
`Lighting pioneered.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`ANSWER:
`
`Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to answer the
`
`allegations of this paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`V.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
`INVENTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Identification of the Patents and Ownership by Philips Lighting
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 26.
`
`Complainants assert five patents in this Investigation. A table identifying the claims
`asserted against each Respondent and for domestic industry is provided below.
`
`Patent
`Feit
`
`Lowe’s
`
`MSi
`RAB
`
`Satco
`
`Topaz
`
`WAC
`
`
`
`’399
`’890
`14, 22, and 30 7, 8, 17, 18 ,
`19, 34, 35, 47,
`48, 58, 59,
`and 60
`7, 8, 17, 18,
`19, 34, 35, 47,
`58, 59, and 60
`14, 22, and 30 1, 2, 4, and 5
`14, 22, and 30 7, 8, 34, 35,
`47, 58, 59,
`and 60
`7, 8, 17, 18,
`19, 34, 35, 47,
`48, 58, 59,
`and 60
`7, 8, 17, 18,
`19, 34, 35, 47,
`48, 58, 59,
`and 60
`14, 22, and 30 7, 8, 17, 18,
`and 34
`
`
`
`
`
`’554
`
`
`
`’559
`6 and 12
`
`’328
`1, 2, 4, and 9
`
`1, 2, 5, 6, 7,
`12, 46, 47, 49,
`50, and 51
`
`
`
`
`1, 2, 5, 6,
`7,12,46,47,49
`50, and 51
`
`1, 2, 5, 6, 7,
`12, 46, 47, 49,
`50, and 51
`
`1, 2, 5, 6, 7,
`12, 46, 47, 49,
`50, and 51
`1, 2, 5, 6, 12,
`46, 47, 49, 50,
`51, 52, and 57
`
`6 and 12
`
`1, 2, 4, and 9
`
`6 and 12
`6, 10, 11, and
`12
`
`
`1, 2, and 9
`
`6 and 12
`
`1, 7, and 9
`
`6 and 12
`
`1, 2, 7., and 9
`
`
`
`
`
`6, 10, 11, and
`12
`
`1, 2, 3, 9, 16,
`and 17
`
`Domestic
`Industry
`
`1, 14,22, and
`30
`
`7, 8, 17, 18,
`34, 35, 47, 58,
`59, and 60
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Table 2. Asserted Claims for Infringement and Technical Domestic Industry
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco admits that Complainants purport to assert the four identified patents in this
`
`Investigation. The other patent appears to be directed to a Respondent other than Satco.
`
`Satco specifically denies that it has imported any product into the United States that
`
`infringes a valid, enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents. Satco is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a basis to answer the remaining allegations of this paragraph
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`1.
`
`The ’890 Patent
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 27.
`
`The ’890 Patent, entitled “LED Driver Circuit with PWM Output,” issued on July 1,
`2003. Ex. 1 at Title Page. The ’890 Patent is based on U.S. Patent Application No. 10/012,000,
`filed on December 5, 2001. Id. Complainant PLHBV owns by assignment the entire right, title,
`and interest in the ’890 Patent. See Ex. 6.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`This paragraph appears to be directed to a Respondent other than Satco. Therefore, Satco
`
`does not respond to the allegations made in this paragraph. To the extent a response is required,
`
`Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to answer the allegations of
`
`this Paragraph and denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 28.
`
`The ’890 Patent has four independent claims and twenty-seven dependent claims. In this
`Investigation, dependent claims 14, 22, and 30 of the ’890 Patent are being asserted against
`respondents and dependent claims 1, 14, 22, and 30 are being relied on for domestic industry. A
`table identifying the claims asserted against each Respondent and for domestic industry is
`provided below. This complaint is accompanied by a certified copy of the prosecution history of
`the ’890 Patent, three additional copies of the prosecution history, and four copies of each
`reference cited on the face of the ’890 Patent or mentioned in the prosecution history. See
`Appendices A, B.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Feit
`MSi
`RAB
`WAC
`Domestic
`Industry
`
`Asserted Claims
`14, 22, and 30
`14, 22, and 30
`14, 22, and 30
`14, 22, and 30
`1, 14, 22, and 30
`
`Table 3. Asserted claims of the ’890 Patent
`
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
`This paragraph appears to be directed to a Respondent other than Satco. Therefore, Satco
`
`does not respond to the allegations made in this paragraph. To the extent a response is required,
`
`Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to answer the allegations of
`
`this Paragraph and denies them.
`
`2.
`
`The ’399 Patent
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 29.
`
`The ’399 Patent, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Providing Power to Lighting
`Devices,” issued on May 2, 2006. Ex. 2 at Title Page. The ’399 Patent is based on U.S. Patent
`Application No. 10/435,687, filed on May 9, 2003. Id. The ’399 Patent is a continuation-in-part
`of U.S. Patent Application Nos. 09/805,368, filed March 13, 2001, and now U.S. Patent •
`No. 7,186,003, and 09/805,590, filed March 13, 2001, and now U.S. Patent No. 7,064,498. Id.
`The ’399 Patent claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 60/391,627, filed June 26,
`2002, and 60/379,079, filed May 9, 2002. Complainant PLNA owns by assignment the entire
`right, title, and interest in the ’399 Patent. See Ex. 7.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco states that the ‘399 Patent speaks for itself and denies the allegations of this
`
`paragraph to the extent they purport to attribute to the patent anything that is not stated therein, to
`
`the extent they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any claim of any asserted patent,
`
`and to the extent they purport to state that any asserted patent discloses or claims anything
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`inventive or novel. Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to
`
`answer the remaining allegations of this paragraph and therefore denies.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 30.
`
`The ’399 Patent has eleven independent claims and fifty-three dependent claims. In this
`Investigation, independent claims 7, 17, 34, 47, 58, and 59, and dependent claims 8, 18, 19, 35,
`48, and 60 of the ’399 Patent are being asserted against respondents and independent claims 7,
`17, 34, 47, 58, 59 and dependent claims 8, 18, 35 and 60 are being relied on for domestic
`industry. A table identifying the claims asserted against each Respondent and for domestic
`industry is provided below. This complaint is accompanied by a certified copy of the
`prosecution history of the ’399 Patent, three additional copies of the prosecution history, and four
`copies of each reference cited on the face of the ’399 Patent or mentioned in the prosecution
`history. See Appendices C, D.
`
`
`
`Feit
`
`Lowe’s
`
`MSi
`RAB
`Satco
`
`Topaz
`
`WAC
`Domestic
`Industry
`
`Asserted Claims
`7,8, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35, 47, 48,
`58. 48, 58, 59, and 60
`7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35, 47, 58,
`59, and 60
`1, 2, 4 and 5
`7, 8, 34, 35, 47, 58, 59, and 60
`7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35, 47, 48,
`58, 59, and 60
`7,8, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35,47, 48, 58,
`59, and 60
`7, 8, 17, 18, and 34
`7,8, 17, 18, 34, 35, 47, 58, 59,
`and 60
`
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Table 4. Asserted claims of the ’399 Patent
`
`Satco states that the ’399 Patent speaks for itself and denies the allegations of this
`
`paragraph to the extent they purport to attribute to the patent anything that is not stated therein, to
`
`the extent they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any claim of any asserted patent,
`
`and to the extent they purport to state that any asserted patent discloses or claims anything
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`inventive or novel. Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to
`
`answer the remaining allegations of this paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`3.
`
`The ’554 Patent
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 31.
`
`The ’554 Patent, entitled “LED Power Control Methods and Apparatus,” issued on
`August 14, 2007. Ex. 3 at Title Page. The ’554 Patent is based on U.S. Patent Application No..
`11/079,450, filed on March 14, 2005, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`No. 60/553,318, filed March 15, 2004. Id. Complainant PLNA owns by assignment the entire
`right, title, and interest in the ’554 Patent. See Ex. 8.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco states that the ’544 Patent speaks for itself and denies the allegations of this
`
`paragraph to the extent they purport to attribute to the patent anything that is not stated therein, to
`
`the extent they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any claim of any asserted patent,
`
`and to the extent they purport to state that any asserted patent discloses or claims anything
`
`inventive or novel. Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to
`
`answer the remaining allegations of this paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 32.
`
`The ’554 Patent has ten independent claims and eighty-one dependent claims. In this
`Investigation, independent claims 1, 6, 46, and 51 and dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 47, 49, and
`50 of the ’554 Patent are being asserted against respondents and independent claims 1, 6, 46, and
`51 and dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 12, 47, 49, 50, 52, and 57 are being relied on for domestic
`industry. A table identifying the claims asserted against each Respondent and for domestic
`industry is provided below. This complaint is accompanied by a certified copy of the
`prosecution history of the ’554 Patent, three additional copies of the prosecution history, and four
`copies of each reference cited on the face of the ’554 Patent or mentioned in the prosecution
`history. See Appendices E, F.
`
`
`
`Lowe’s
`
`Satco
`
`Asserted Claims
`1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 46, 47, 49,
`50, and 51
`1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 46, 47, 49,
`50, and 51
`
`
`CHICAGO/#3067068
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Topaz
`
`WAC
`
`Domestic
`Industry
`
`Asserted Claims
`1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 46, 47, 49,
`50, and 51
`1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 46, 47, 49,
`50, and 51
`1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 46, 47, 49,
`50, 51, 52, and 57
`
`Table 5. Asserted claims of the ’554 Patent
`
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco states that the ’544 Patent speaks for itself and denies the allegations of this
`
`paragraph to the extent they purport to attribute to the patent anything that is not stated therein, to
`
`the extent they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any claim of any asserted patent,
`
`and to the extent they purport to state that any asserted patent discloses or claims anything
`
`inventive or novel. Satco is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a basis to
`
`answer the remaining allegations of this paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`4.
`
`The ’559 Patent
`
`ALLEGATION NO. 33.
`
`The ’559 Patent, entitled “LEDs Driver,” issued on August 28, 2007. Ex. 4 at Title Page.
`The ’559 Patent is based on U.S. Patent Application No. 10/539,981, filed on December 11,
`2003, and is the national stage entry of PCT/IB03/05992, which claims priority to U.S.
`Provisional Application No. 60/434,550, filed December 19, 2002. Id. Complainant PLHBV
`owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in the ’559 Patent. See Ex. 9.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`Satco states that the ’559 Patent speaks for itself and denies the allegations of this
`
`paragraph to the extent they purport to attribute to the patent anything that is not stated therein, to
`
`the extent they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any claim of any asserted patent,
`
`and to the extent they purport to state that a