Page 18 - Lighting-Magazine-August-2014

In The News

ITC

Reverses

Decision

on Patent

Dispute,

Sides With

SATCO

ast month, the International Trade decision made in February was incorrect. “Allowing companies to initiate base-
Commission (ITC) reversed the SATCO Products successfully defended less lawsuits with the intent to force a
Linitial decision by an Administrative the design of the company’s PAR CFL setlement, is, in my opinion, tantamount
Law Judge on February 3, 2014 in a lamps against Neptun and Bobel’s to extortion. Choosing not to back down
patent dispute between Neptun Light, complaint with the ITC alleging that and fght for what we believe, and know
Inc. – a designer, developer, and manu- SATCO imported/manufactured compact is right – and to win – makes this deter-
facturer of lighting products by founder fuorescent refector lamps (PAR) that mination more than justifed. SATCO
and inventor Andrzej Bobel – and lighting infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540. acknowledges and thanks the ITC for
manufacturer SATCO (as well as MaxLite Ultimately, Neptun and Bobel failed to their eforts and accurate decision.”
and Litetronics) over imported compact prove infringement of any of the claims of The following is a list of SATCO PAR
fuorescent refector lamps (PAR). the patent. CFL products that were previously
Neptun and Bobel had originally fled a accused and now found not to infringe:
complaint with the ITC alleging infringe- SATCO’s PAR38 CFL lamps are identifed
ment on U.S. Patent No. 7,053,540 in “This has been a long by SKU S7201, S7202, S7203, S7295,
violation of Section 337 of the U.S. Tarif process, but one worth the S7422, and S7432; PAR30 lamps are
Act. In the February ruling, the ITC time, efort, and expense.” identifed by SKU S7204, S7205, S7206,
Administrative Law Judge found that S7237, and S7294; and PAR20 lamps are
SATCO and MaxLite infringed claims 1, —Bill Gildin, President of SATCO identifed by SKU S7207, S7208, S7209,
2, and 11 of the ’540 patent; Litetronics S7238, and S7241.
infringed claims 1, 2, and 10 of the ’540 As of press time, there has been no
patent; and that the domestic industry “This has been a long process, but one word on whether the decision against
requirement had been satisfed. worth the time, efort, and expense,” MaxLite and Litetronics has been
On July 3, the ITC ruled that the states Bill Gildin, President of SATCO. reversed.

16 enLIGHTenment Magazine | august 2014 www.enlightenmentmag.com