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
Datavant, Inc. et al.vsVigilytics LLC
Datavant successfully challenged the validity of Vigilytics' patent 9665685 in an IPR proceeding. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success on all grounds, instituting the case for further review.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 35 claims of the ’686 semiconductor device patent owned by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process. The petition alleges examiner error and that multiple prior‑art references render the claims anticipated or obvious.
Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of the ’284 spinal fusion patent owned by Moskowitz Family. The challenger relies on Palmatier, Gordon and Glerum as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness.
Starbucks Corporation et al.vsPi-Design AG et al.
Starbucks and Pi‑Design have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,695,486. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Apple Inc.vsVampire Labs, LLC
Apple and Vampire Labs reached a settlement, prompting a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,358,103. The Board granted the termination without addressing the merits.
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.