On June 12, 2021, Absen won the lawsuit against Ultravision's news to blast the LED industry circle. With this milestone victory, this American company called Ultravision once again entered our vision.
On March 27, 018, U.S. UItravision Technologies (hereinafter referred to as Supervision) applied to the U.S. International Merchandise Commission (ITC) and the U.S. Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) to initiate a "337" investigation, accusing Shenzhen Eleven Chinese companies including Absen Optoelectronics Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Unilumin Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Alto Electronics Co., Ltd., and Leyard Optoelectronics Group infringed on two of their LED display module patents and requested a general exclusion Orders, Limited Exclusion Orders, and Prohibition Orders.
It is understood that the two patents held by Supervision are mainly based on waterproof structure. They are not the core technology of the display screen and have no substantial protective effect. Moreover, many Chinese LED display companies have products with the characteristics of this patent as early as Its patents had been sold on the US market before the patent was filed. Even so, on May 24, 2018, the U.S. ITC still voted to accept the prosecution's application and initiate the 337 investigation.
Chinese LED companies actively responded to the investigation stage. On the one hand, they hired American lawyers. On the other hand, the company’s intellectual property, legal affairs, technology research and development and international sales teams worked closely to actively provide evidence. Finally, on February 21, 2019, the prosecutor withdrew the lawsuit and obtained 337 The victory of the investigation.
However, the matter did not end. During the 337 investigation, Ultravision also initiated a parallel lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas in the United States, and added more than ten patents in a short period of time. After the 337 investigation case ended, the Eastern District Court of Texas formally initiated the trial of the patent infringement lawsuit, and the object of the lawsuit was mainly against Chinese LED display companies.
In fact, after case analysis, this American ultra-duty company, which claims to be a rights defender, bought the products of some mainstream domestic companies more than 10 years ago. After obtaining relevant product R&D technical materials and product drawings, he was in the United States. Applying for various display patents, and after successfully obtaining the patent rights, used the patents to counterclaim that the display products sold by the Chinese LED companies in the US market infringed their patent rights, so as to demand huge compensation. This is why there is a weird phenomenon that the actual application of our products with relevant characteristics is earlier than the patent application of the other party.
As we all know, the U.S. International Trade Commission's investigations based on Section 337 of the "Tariff Act of 1930" ostensibly prohibit all acts of unfair competition or any unfair trade practices in products exported to the United States. In fact, it is the core means under the US trade protectionism in the name of intellectual property rights. Therefore, it appears that the threshold is low, the sanctions are severe, the response to the suit is difficult, the cost is high, and there are extremely high requirements for the responsiveness of the enterprises involved. Since the Section 337 investigation is an administrative investigation that does not require judicial procedures, the applicant only needs to prove that there is an industry in the United States related to the intellectual property rights claimed by the applicant, and does not need to prove that there is damage, then the case can be filed; one of the general exclusion orders is a family Losing the lawsuit, along with other companies that produce the product in the country, will also withdraw from the US market. And at every turn 3-6 million US dollars, or even higher litigation costs, even more prohibitive for most small and medium-sized enterprises.
Absen’s victory against Ultravision not only laid the foundation for the success of the subsequent Chinese LED companies, but also cleared the patent barriers of some Chinese LED companies in the US market. The most important thing is that this field lasted for several years. In the patent battle, Chinese LED companies have a more mature international perspective: especially in the awareness of intellectual property protection, this lesson is costly, but far-reaching.
