Two Amazon Gaming Chair Sellers Seek a Declaratory Judgment Against Semisilicon on LED Lamp Patent 8,124,988 After an APEX Complaint.

The case is Verona Sky International Trading Co., Ltd. v. Semisilicon Technology Corp., No. 1:26-cv-10782 (N.D. Ill.), filed September 4, 2026 in the Eastern Division. The plaintiffs are Verona Sky, which the complaint describes as a California company, and Chengdu Jieyuan Dunzhi E-Commerce Co., Ltd., a Chinese company doing business as JY Furniture. Both sell furniture on Amazon, including under the GTPlayer brand. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Semisilicon is a Taiwanese company. The plaintiffs demand a jury.

The APEX complaint

According to the complaint, each plaintiff received an Amazon notice on August 18, 2026 that Semisilicon had reported its gaming chair listing as infringing the '988 patent, along with an APEX agreement naming claim 1 as the asserted claim. The notice gave the sellers three weeks to obtain a retraction, file suit in federal court, or join Amazon's neutral evaluation, or the listings would be removed. The plaintiffs say they chose court because APEX cannot decide validity or their state-law claims.

The patent

U.S. Patent 8,124,988, titled Light Emitting Diode Lamp Package Structure and Assembly Thereof, issued February 28, 2012. Claim 1 covers an LED lamp package with several LEDs sharing a common electrode end, a control integrated circuit that receives external control data through a data input electrode and sets the illumination of each LED, four conductors (a positive DC voltage pad, a data-in conductor, a data-out conductor, and a negative DC voltage pad), and a package body that encapsulates the parts while leaving a portion of each conductor exposed. The complaint says a third party requested ex parte reexamination in November 2023 (Control No. 90/015,328) and that the USPTO confirmed claim 1 after Semisilicon argued that a claimed "pad" is a metalized area on the surface of an active substrate, as distinct from a pin. The reexamination certificate, issued December 13, 2024, confirms claims 1 to 15 and 22, cancels claims 16 to 21, 23, and 24, and adds claims 25 to 43.

Noninfringement and invalidity theories

The plaintiffs allege that the LED packages in their chairs use external leads that are part of a stamped metal lead frame, not "pads" as Semisilicon described them in reexamination, so the chairs lack the positive and negative DC voltage pad limitations. They allege that claim 1 is anticipated by Chinese Utility Model CN 201017882 Y and obvious over that reference or U.S. Patent 6,777,891, each in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0079957, and they also plead invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 112.

State-law claims and relief

The tortious interference and unfair competition counts allege that Semisilicon's APEX complaint was objectively baseless and made in bad faith because of its reexamination statements. The plaintiffs ask for the two declarations, damages on the state-law claims, an injunction against asserting claim 1 against the chairs inconsistent with the judgment, including through APEX, an order to withdraw the pending APEX complaint to the same extent, and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. For personal jurisdiction they point to Semisilicon's own earlier patent suit in the district, No. 1:25-cv-07388, and alternatively to Rule 4(k)(2).

What to watch next

So far the docket shows the complaint and two appearances for the plaintiffs. Watch for service on Semisilicon, its answer or motion to dismiss, any infringement counterclaim, and what happens to the APEX listings.