Someone owns the patent on putting SMT LED's on a flexible PCB? How can it be?

Yep! Plenty of examples have been posted in the past.

It is obvious. I've done it myself in a product.

It's more than just putting the two together, if that was the case then that would be the only claim. Getting a patent granted does not mean it's innovative, has not been done before, or would stand up to any type of challenge.

about any automobile tail light that uses LEDs

They aren't very bright...

Yep, ignore it. The only thing a patent gives you is the right to attempt to sue someone if they copy it. That takes squillions of dollars, and unless you copied every one of the claims in exact detail, they would be wasting their money pursuing you.

Insane is the right word, welcome to the world of patents.

Dave.

Having been involved on the receiving end of a patent infringement let me tell you that if it has not been published publicly then you are up for an expensive fight, even if it is blatantly obvious and lacks novelty.

about any automobile tail light that uses LEDs

Sadly, that's not so. If you violate the first claim all by itself, but not the modifying claims, you're still vulnerable. Here's the claim:

1. A flexible, low profile lighting system, comprising:

a flexible printed circuit board substrate, the substrate adapted to support and electrically interconnect surface mount electronic components, the printed circuit board substrate flexible through at least two axes of rotation; a plurality of surface mount light emitting diodes; and wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes are surface mounted on the flexible printed circuit board substrate, so as to define a conformably bendable lighting array configured for mounting upon surfaces with compound curvature substrate, the array outputting a uniform light intensity of at least 2000 millicandles per square centimeter.

I agree, another bad patent for my "bad patents" folder.

This is my concern. Patents are cheap to apply for, provided you can write up the application yourself. The PTO does not publish applications in time and in a conspicuous manner for people to challenge them, so lots of bad patents get issued.

But to challenge it after issue is very hard and very expensive. The fee alone is around $2k if I remember right.

So lets say Joe Blow decides to come up with some sort of flexible LED array and this patent holder says he will sue... well, if the alleged infringer is a small company, is he going to fight it? Trying to overturn the validity of a patent as your defense is possible but it's not the easiest path and it progresses in conjunction with the infringement suit - so if you dont get it overturned quickly enough, then you are still in violation (see RIM/Blackberry). If the alleged infringer is a big company, then plenty of lawyers will sue on consignment, so the big co spends lots of $$$ and if they win, they just get to make less $$, and if they lose they may lose big.

IMO it's a very serious problem.

I would be interested in hearing the outcome in the case mentioned above. Can you elaborate?

Yes you are absolutely right - all one needs to do is violate ANY of the claims to be infringing. So if ANYONE makes a flexible PCB with LED's on it with a brightness of 2000mCD/sq-cm they are violating this patent.

That is an utterly insane thing to grant a patent on. It hampers innovation and gives way waaay too much breadth to the patent holder.

Isnt there some kind of oversight of the PTO? The fact that it explicitly states 200mcd or more leads me to believe that they knew other devices of less-than 2000mcd already existed. So basically the examiner thought that the applicant was doing something novel and un- obvious just by doing whats been done, but at greater than 2000mcd?

Just crazy! What can be done? This patent affects a project I am working on. Likely I would never be sued, but what if I were? Is there no way to honestly fight it without waiting to get sued?

You might ask the patent holder if they'll license it. Since it's a weak patent, the fee should be VERY low. If not, they run the risk you'll try to overturn it. They might have filed it to protect a product they have, which you might not be threatening. I don't think it hurts to talk.

Really? Point out one example of 2000mc/cm2 on flex before 2000.

As a test, I squeezed as many 80mc 0603 leds as I could into 1 sq cm, and it just barely topped 2000mc, so they're not patenting "leds on a ribbon", they're patenting a ribbon of NOTHING BUT leds! I.e. they've patented a flexible luminous blanket. With the LEDs of 2000, how hard would it have been to even GET 2000mc/cm2 ?

text -

Note carefully the use of the terminology "compound curvature". Any device not incorporating "compound curvature" is probably not infringing, regardless of the eventual status of this particular patent (i.e., invalidated if there is a God). Paul Mathews

That's incorrect. To violate claim 1 you'd have to have:

a) A flexible, low profile lighting system

that is

b), constructed using - a flexible pcb that is flexible through at least two axes of rotation, AND - one or more surface-mounted LEDs, AND c) which results in a bendable lighting array configured for mounting upon surfaces with compound curvature substrate, AND d) the array outputting a uniform light intensity of at least 2000 millicandles per square centimeter.

If you wanted to make an array that had lower intensity, non-uniform light intensity, that was for something other than a low-profile lighting system, or which couldn't be twisted in two axis, this would not infringe, AFAICT.

Without reading anything else, it sounds to me like they've patented a 'light blanket' for wrapping around a ball or some such.

HTH, James Arthur

On the plus side, with this low standard of inventiveness, if you apply for a patent for exactly the same thing, but where the brightness exceeds

4000mCd, there is every chance that you get it granted. This will not allow you to make anything since any product covered by your patent would also be covered by the previous patent and require a licence from them. On the other hand, when the next generation of brighter LEDs comes out, the other company has to restrict the brightness or they are screwed.

Chris

As I understand it, they don't really bother with the inventiveness requirement any more, and unless they find a pretty much word-for-word identical description in a fairly narrow range of documents that they search (mostly other patents), they'll give it to you. You can word the application with deliberately unusual language so as to reduce the likelihood that they will find a word-for-word match in the cursory search for prior art.

As I understand it, in the UK one can apply for a patent free of change, and I see this as perhaps the best defence that could be mounted, except that the standard of examination might be slightly better in Europe. If a group of patent-haters could set up some kind of open licence and then patent a whole bunch of trivial things in a sort of distributed denial of service attack, and then threaten big companies who infringe that you will lend the relevant patent to their competitors unless they donate a patent of equal or greater value to your pool, then you could build up a library of patents that are free for the use of anyone who doesn't hold any patents that are outside this patent pool. Whether it could be made to work is another matter.

Chris

I doubt it. The European Patent Office job ads are targeted and ask explicitly for newly-graduates, that voids the whole point of skilled-in-the-art and knowledgeable of prior-art requirements in one go.

Best Regards

Steve Sousa

IT was a software infringement. The company that was sued settled out of court.. Do a google for Jupiters V Neurizon. I hear a lot of law schools are using that case for education now.

A lot of the time they won't have the money and will simply be bluffing.

If you really are that concerned, get some real patent advice about

*your* design and if it even comes close to the published patent. Much better to spend your money on that than trying to get the patent overturned. There are countless products out there with SMD led's on a flex circuit, and the patent in question is very specific. They are *not* trying to patent "an SMD on a flex circuit", rather it is fairly clear they are patenting their very specific application of it. That's what the vast majority of patents are for, it is for a very specific implementation of something. There are very few patents out there that cover a very generic field.

Don't be frightened by a patent, if everyone else did the same no one would be in business making anything.

Dave.

So make sure your design doesn't violate *any* of the claims.

If the problem happens to be the 2000mcd limit, then make yours output

1000mcd each and use two of them, etc. Plenty of ways to skin the proverbial cat.

Dave.

Sorry, my comment was referring to dumb patents, not this LED example.

Dave.

How about this nonsense?

A patent to mount button cell battery on PCB. Since there is no link or match at the USPTO, can I assume that this is a non-issue?

They should have never allowed software patents.

But if it's just some lawyers, that "bluff" can be VERY expensive. The lawyers who doubtless were at least in part behind this patent, can file crap by the TON for relatively low filing fees just on the HOPE that you'll crumble and pay up from the pressure. They know unless you are GM or something, fighting them will cost you a fortune. It's the VERY idea behind the bogus lawsuits by cities on gun manufacturers attempting to put them all out of business. Only that scam has the advantage of paying the lawyers using public money.

It may well be for a specific application, but the way it's worded is rather generic. In fact it's SO generic it's invalid. This device, has LONG been used on the Side of Alembic guitar necks to mark the fret positions. They are available for sale right now. I'll bet you could Easily find examples as prior art in a ton of other products out there. But that isn't the point is it? If you are a lawyer with a bunch of time on your hands, your costs are nearly free and you can use that fact to intimidate people fighting your scam. Somehow the courts always seem accept just about ANY wild scam as possibly valid until it comes right down to the end. Remember the Million Dollar pants? The bottom line is it's a huge pressure machine.

Hey, who is? I got to hand it to the Chinese, though. They regularly scan American patent files for cool stuff that the patents have run out on and nobody makes any more. No lawyer hassle. But it's not the patent you need to be afraid of, it's the lawyers! Of course the Lawyer didn't win the pants thing either, but what did he have to loose except some free time he wasn't using anyway?