Short Summary
Jesco Lighting Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of AGS Lighting Management’s linear LED lighting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details four grounds, each pairing Edwards, Sadwick, Jeswani, and May to show the claimed features were well‑known.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑01328, Jesco Lighting Group, LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,751,302 owned by AGS Lighting Management, LLC. The petitioner, represented by David C. Radulescu and Bryon Wasserman, requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institute inter‑partes review and cancel claims 1‑20. The petition sets forth four obviousness grounds, each combining prior‑art references—Edwards with Sadwick, Edwards with Sadwick and Jeswani, May with Jeswani, and May with Jeswani and Sadwick—to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to arrive at the claimed linear LED lighting apparatus. No objective evidence of non‑obviousness is presented, and the petitioner relies on expert testimony from Prof. J. Gary Eden. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage, with no institution decision rendered.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Jesco Lighting Group, LLC vs AGS Lighting Management, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsGreenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable and non-novel in advanced CMOS fabrication.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Utility companies and BirchTech settled multiple IPRs covering power‑grid patents. The Board treated the settlement agreements as confidential and terminated the IPRs as to the settling petitioners, leaving the remaining petitioners in the proceeding.
Carbyne, Inc. et al.vsTritech Software Systems et al.
Carbyne, Inc. sought a rehearing of the Director Review in IPR2025-00959, but the USPTO denied the request. The decision leaves the original patent enforcement order in place.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.)vsMaxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response to TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,375,341, arguing that the petitioner’s obviousness ground based on the Acharya reference fails to disclose key claim elements and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Mullen Industries that Director Review requests for IPR2025-00018 and three related IPRs have been received. Google may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.