Lumileds announced the appointment of Kevin Martin as Senior Vice President of Quality, effective March 1. Martin has over 30 years of experience in Quality, most recently serving as VP of Global Quality at Flextronics.

“We are thrilled to have Kevin join our organization to continue to strengthen how we deliver advanced lighting solutions at the highest quality level,” said Mark Adams, CEO of Lumileds.

During his time at Flextronics, Martin led the worldwide Quality team supporting global operations in North and South America, China, Europe and India. Prior to Flextronics, Kevin served as VP of Total Customer Satisfaction at Nissan Motor, where he was responsible for North and South America field quality and customer satisfaction for all Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. Prior to Nissan, Kevin was the General Manager of Customer Quality Engineering at Toyota. In addition to roles in Quality, Martin has held positions in production, manufacturing operations and engineering. Martin has a Bachelor’s Degree in Manufacturing Engineering from Western Carolina University.

“I am excited to join Lumileds and help further our commitment to quality across our growing customer base,” added Martin.

On February 2, 2018, Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd (“Seoul”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Italy in the Court of Milan against Mouser Electronics Inc. (“Mouser”), a global electronic components distributor, as well as its Italian subsidiary – for the sale of certain Everlight LED products.

According to the complaint, Seoul has asserted that Mouser is liable for selling such LED products that infringe Seoul’s patent rights. Based on the alleged infringement, Seoul has sought a permanent injunction, damages, withdrawal from the market, and destruction of such products.

Prior to this litigation, Seoul already filed two patent infringement lawsuits against Mouser in Germany in the District Court of Düsseldorf in 2017, accusing high-power and mid-power LED products manufactured by Everlight of infringement.

Despite such lawsuits, however, Mouser has continued to sell products accused of infringement in other countries. For that reason, Seoul launched its third patent infringement lawsuit against Mouser for the sale of Everlight LED products in Italy. Seoul is committed to pursuing enforcement against those that infringe its patent rights.

Seoul has invested 10% of its revenue, more than 100 million dollars per year, in research and development to develop innovative technology and strengthen its patent portfolio since its inception. Seoul has also made a significant commitment to protecting its intellectual property rights against suspected infringement since it successfully obtained a preliminary injunction order against Taiwan LED maker AOT in 2005. For example, in 2014, Seoul filed patent infringement lawsuits against two North American TV makers in 2014, resulting in a judgment based upon one maker’s admissions of infringement, and royalty-bearing licenses by both makers. In 2016, Seoul secured a willful infringement judgment for its LED lens patent against Japanese LED lens maker Enplas from the U.S. district court. In 2017, Seoul resolved a patent infringement litigation that it had against Kmart, and as part of the settlement, Kmart agreed to stop selling certain filament LED bulbs. Seoul also recently began an enforcement campaign for protecting its Acrich technology, and has filed a patent litigation against a U.S. lighting maker for infringement of 12 Acrich patents. Throughout this period, Seoul has continued to put other companies on notice that it suspects of patent infringement.

Seoul plans to continue and expand its patent enforcement against market participants involving suspected-infringement across the world – until they cease suspected-infringement and Seoul secures court remedies to address harm caused by the suspected-infringement.

An official of Seoul’s IP team explained, “In order to fundamentally block distribution of suspected-infringing products, we will have to expand our enforcement efforts to include direct manufacturers, secondary product manufacturers who have purchased or used suspected-infringing components, as well as their distributors.”

He added, “For young entrepreneurs and small businesses that try to realize their dreams with a creative idea, we believe that intellectual property should be respected.”

Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Inc. (AMEC) today announced that the Fujian High Court in China has granted AMEC’s motion for an injunction against Veeco Instruments (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (Veeco Shanghai). The injunction prohibits Veeco Shanghai from importing, manufacturing, selling or offering for sale to any third party any MOCVD systems and wafer carriers used in the MOCVD systems that would infringe AMEC’s patent CN 202492576 in China. The patent covers AMEC’s proprietary wafer carrier and spindle-locking and synchronization technology. The injunction covers Veeco’s TurboDisk EPIK 700 system, EPIK 700 C2 system, and EPIK 700 C4 system, as well as the related wafer carriers used in the MOCVD systems. AMEC believes that the ruling should also cover Veeco’s EPIK 868 system and related wafer carriers, since AMEC believes that the EPIK 868 system also uses AMEC’s patented technology involved in the action.

The ruling, which is unappealable, takes effect immediately. The stringent injunction terms expose the nature of Veeco Shanghai’s flagrant violation of AMEC’s intellectual property (IP) and confirms that Veeco Shanghai does not respect AMEC’s IP rights.

AMEC filed the patent infringement claim against Veeco Shanghai in the Fujian High Court on July 13^th 2017. The motion requested a permanent injunction against Veeco Shanghai, as well as compensation for monetary damages of more than 100 million RMB Yuan (approx. US$15 million).

The injunction follows a previous victory for AMEC relating to the same action. When AMEC filed its claim in July, Veeco Shanghai responded by filing a patent invalidation request with the Patent Re-examination Board (PRB) of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) in China. A second request to invalidate the same AMEC patent was filed concurrently by an individual. The PRB held separate hearings for the two requests. On Nov. 24^th2017, the PRB dismissed both requests,thereby upholding the validity of the patent.

AMEC invested heavily in R&D and IP protection for this key technology. AMEC first developed the technology, filed a series of patents to protect the innovations, and installed equipment containing the technology at a number of LED production fabs in China. Veeco later followed by using the same locking approach in its MOCVD system to improve the tool’s performance. After AMEC filed the patent disputed by Veeco Shanghai, Veeco Instruments Inc. (Veeco US) submitted a similar patent application, and subsequently used this technology in its MOCVD system, thus infringing AMEC’s patent.

“The court’s ruling and the PRB’s decisions together confirm in no uncertain terms that AMEC’s technology contains unique innovations, and that our patent portfolio is comprehensive, robust and highly valuable,” said Dr. Zhiyou Du, Senior Vice President, COO & General Manager of AMEC’s MOCVD Product Division. “We are very pleased with the court’s decision. We take IP enforcement seriously, and we will not tolerate any violation of our IP rights. Indeed, we will aggressively pursue instances of infringement, and vigorously protect our IP portfolio.”

Dr. Du continued: “As a supplier of high-end micro-fabrication equipment to leading global manufacturers of ICs, LEDs and power devices, AMEC attaches great importance to IP protection. Since our founding in 2004, we have independently developed unique technologies to enable our customers worldwide. Therefore, for more than a decade, we have defended our IP in domestic and international jurisdictions when challenged, and prevailed in every case. We respect the IP of our customers and competitors, and we expect the same regard for our IP.”

In a separate development, AMEC filed a motion on Dec. 8^th 2017 to invalidate a Veeco patent with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). The patent, US 6,726,769 filed in 2001, covers a detachable wafer carrier technology. It was asserted in an infringement action initiated in the US by Veeco US against AMEC’s supplier of wafer carriers for MOCVD systems. AMEC believes that the Veeco patent is invalid because the technology was definitively and clearly disclosed in many prior patents and publications as far back as the early 1960s. Therefore, the Veeco patent does not meet standard patent law requirements. Besides filing to invalidate the patent in the US, AMEC has already filed motions to invalidate counterpart patent families in China and South Korea.

AMEC intends to also challenge a second Veeco US patent (US 6,506,252) involved in the same US infringement action. A motion to that effect will soon be filed with the PTAB.

Dr. Gerald Yin, Chairman and CEO of AMEC, said: “We are confident that AMEC will prevail in its action against Veeco Shanghai, and that Veeco Shanghai will be required to pay for the enormous cost of its infringement beginning in 2014 when Veeco US launched its EPIK 700 system. In addition, we believe that our supplier will eventually prevail in its US case.”

Dr. Yin further noted: “AMEC is an innovative company with extensive expertise in providing breakthrough technologies that enable customers with competitive advantages. Our products have earned market success for their differentiation and value. Naturally, we prefer to focus our efforts on providing such innovative products and stellar service to customers instead of wasting time and resources on litigation. That’s why we’re fully committed to reaching a positive resolution with Veeco, and working diligently to achieve that goal.”