SATCO PRODUCTS, INC. v. LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORP. , No. 19-1638 (Fed. Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-1638 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2020 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SATCO PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant v. LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP CORPORATION, Appellee ______________________ 2019-1638 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR201701638. ______________________ Decided: April 8, 2020 ______________________ ROBERT STEPHAN RIGG, Vedder Price PC, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOHN K. BURKE, SUDIP MITRA, DANIEL SHULMAN. KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellee. ______________________ Before DYK, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Case: 19-1638 Document: 51 Page: 2 SATCO PRODS., INC. 2 Filed: 04/08/2020 v. LIGHTING SCI. GRP. CORP. STOLL, Circuit Judge. Satco Products, Inc. appeals the determination of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 14, 15, and 19–23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,201,968 are not anticipated or, in combination with other prior art references, rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No. 7,670,021. The issues in this case are identical to the issues presented to us in Technical Consumer Products Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corp., No. 19-1361 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2020), issued herewith. For the reasons stated in that opinion, and because claims 2 and 6 of the ’968 patent are the only remaining challenged claims in this case, 1 we vacate the Board’s decision of no anticipation or obviousness of claims 2 and 6 and remand for consideration of the parties’ remaining arguments pertaining to those claims. VACATED AND REMANDED COSTS Costs to Appellant. Claims 1, 11, 14, 15, and 19–23 of the ’968 patent were determined to be unpatentable in Technical Consumer Products, Inc. v. Lighting Science Group Corporation, No. IPR2017-01287, 2018 WL 5733733 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018), and Lighting Science Group Corp. did not appeal this determination. 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.