SemiLED Innovations Sues Jiaxing Super Lighting and Zhejiang Super Lighting Over Three LED Patents.

The patents and the accused lamps

SemiLED Innovations LLC v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., No. 2:26-cv-00935 (E.D. Tex.), is a 35-page complaint for patent infringement filed October 16, 2026, in the Marshall Division, ECF No. 1. The complaint describes SemiLED as a Texas limited liability company with a business address in McKinney, Texas. It describes each defendant as a corporation organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China. It places Jiaxing Super Lighting's principal place of business in Jiaxing, China, and Zhejiang Super Lighting's in Lishui, China. It alleges that Zhejiang Super Lighting is the parent of Jiaxing Super Lighting, which it describes as what is believed to be a wholly owned subsidiary, and that the two share common ownership, management, and operational control. The complaint refers to the defendants, together, as Super Lighting. The docket assigns the case to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

The complaint alleges that SemiLED is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,309,971, 8,963,196, and 9,530,942, and that each patent was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and is valid and enforceable. U.S. Patent 8,309,971, titled Light Emitting Diode Having Electrode Pads, issued November 13, 2012, from Application No. 12/974,917, filed December 21, 2010. U.S. Patent 8,963,196, titled Slim LED Package, issued February 24, 2015, from Application No. 14/161,377, filed January 22, 2014. U.S. Patent 9,530,942, also titled Slim LED Package, issued December 27, 2016, from Application No. 14/816,532, filed August 3, 2015. The '942 patent's related-application data identifies Application No. 14/161,377, now U.S. Patent 8,963,196. The complaint alleges that SemiLED has the right to sue on each patent and to recover for past infringement.

Paragraph 2 alleges that the defendants infringe at least by selling, without authorization, the plaintiff's technologies in residential and commercial products. The products it lists include a Keystone T5 LED Lamp, model KT-LED25T5HO-48GC-835-DX2; KT-LED10.5T8-48G-830-DX2; KT-LED15PST8-U1G-8CSJ-X3; KT-LED40PST8-96G-8CSJ-D2; KT-LED40PST8-D48GC-8CSJ-D2; KT-LED9T8-24G-830-DX2/USA; RAB T8-9-24G-830-SD-BYP USA; RAB T8-96G-DE-BYP; RAB T8-U6G-SD-HYB; RAB T8-U1G-SD-HYB; RAB T8-8-48G-850-SD-BYP; and Light Efficient Designs LED-10T8-830DE48-G3, among other substantially similar products. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants manufacture those lamps and that they directly or indirectly distribute, market, offer to sell, or sell them in the United States, or import them, including in this district. It alleges, on information and belief, that Super Lighting makes lighting products that other companies rebrand and sell, pointing to matching technical specifications on an industry qualified-products list and to import records. Each count accuses that same group of lamps. The element-by-element allegations use the Keystone T5 LED Lamp as the exemplary product.

What the claims cover

Claim 1 of the '971 patent covers a light emitting diode with a substrate, a first conductive type semiconductor layer arranged on the substrate, a second conductive type semiconductor layer arranged on the first, and an active layer disposed between those two layers. It also covers a first electrode pad electrically connected to the first conductive type semiconductor layer, a second electrode pad arranged on the second conductive type semiconductor layer, an insulation layer disposed between the second conductive type semiconductor layer and the second electrode pad, and at least one upper extension electrically connected to the second electrode pad and to the second conductive type semiconductor layer.

Claim 7 covers the diode of claim 1 in which the first electrode pad is arranged to face the second electrode pad. Claim 8 adds a first lower extension extending from the first electrode pad towards the second electrode pad, electrically connected to the first conductive type semiconductor layer. Claim 9 covers that diode where a distal end of the first lower extension is closer to the second electrode pad than the first electrode pad. Claim 11 adds a transparent electrode layer arranged on the second conductive type semiconductor layer and forming an ohmic contact with it. The transparent electrode layer is divided into at least two regions, and the second electrode pad is arranged on an exposed region of the second conductive type semiconductor layer between those regions.

The complaint alleges exemplary infringement of claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the '971 patent by the Keystone T5 LED Lamp. It points to annotated scanning electron microscope images of an individual light emitting diode from that lamp. For the transparent electrode layer in claim 11, it alleges that an energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy analysis shows an indium tin oxide layer.

Claim 1 of the '196 patent covers an LED package with a first lead frame and a second lead frame separated from each other, an LED chip disposed on the first lead frame and electrically connected to the first lead frame and the second lead frame, and a wire connecting the LED chip to the second lead frame. Opposing sides of the first lead frame and the second lead frame face each other in a slanted state to the other sides of the lead frames. The complaint alleges exemplary infringement of claim 1 and walks through those elements against the Keystone T5 LED Lamp.

Claim 1 of the '942 patent covers an LED package with a first lead frame and a second lead frame separated from each other, an LED chip disposed on the first lead frame and electrically connected with the second lead frame, and a resin covering at least portions of surfaces of the first and second lead frames. At least one of the lead frames has a first side facing the other lead frame and a second side opposite the first side. The first lead frame has a first groove on a lower surface, and the second lead frame has a second groove on its lower surface. Each groove is open only on the lower surface of its lead frame, and a depth of the first groove is equal to a depth of the second groove. The complaint alleges exemplary infringement of that claim by the same Keystone T5 LED Lamp, including the grooves.

The counts, the relief, and venue

The complaint pleads three counts, in order. Count I is infringement of the '971 patent. Count II is infringement of the '196 patent. Count III is infringement of the '942 patent. Each count alleges that the defendants have infringed and are infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly and/or indirectly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271 et seq., by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority or license.

Each count alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants were aware of SemiLED's LED patent portfolio, including the patent in that count, before the complaint was filed, as a result of SemiLED's efforts to engage them in licensing discussions, that they did not take a license, and that the infringement is willful. On that assertion, each count seeks attorneys' fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. 285. Each count also alleges compliance with the marking and notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. 287, and damages including a reasonable royalty.

The prayer asks for a judgment that the defendants have infringed one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, directly and/or indirectly, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents; damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 sufficient to compensate SemiLED; a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285, with reasonable attorneys' fees; costs and expenses; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and other relief the court may deem just and proper. The complaint demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

The complaint alleges that the action arises under the patent laws, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and that the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). It alleges specific and general personal jurisdiction under due process and/or the Texas long-arm statute, based on substantial business in the district, including at least a portion of the infringement alleged, and on regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this district. It alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants sell and supply lighting products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge and purposeful intent that customers in the district purchase and use them. It alleges that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) because a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district.

Earlier suits on the same patents

SemiLED has asserted the same three patents, in some suits together with other patents, in earlier cases: No. 1:23-cv-16737 (N.D. Ill.), No. 6:25-cv-00037 (M.D. Fla.), Nos. 4:25-cv-00177 and 4:25-cv-00824 (E.D. Tex.), No. 1:25-cv-02171 (W.D. Tex.), and No. 1:26-cv-01718 (N.D. Ohio).

What to watch next

Watch for service on the defendants and their answer or other response. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.