iLight Triumphs in iLight vs. Fallon Luminous Products

Did you hear about this?  From iLight’s press release (fyi, it’s a PDF link):

Chicago, IL – May 7, 2009 – iLight Technologies, Inc. (www.ilight-tech.com), a leader in innovative LED lighting solutions, is pleased to announce that on April 30, 2009, a jury in Federal Court unanimously found that Fallon Luminous Products Corporation willfully infringed multiple claims in three iLight patents. The jury also unanimously confirmed that those claims of iLight’s patents were not invalid, as Fallon had contended.

The jury concluded that iLight was entitled to a multi-million dollar award of compensatory damages. As a result of the jury’s finding of willful infringement by Fallon, the judge increased the amount of damages awarded by the jury by $1 million. The Court issued an injunction order prohibiting Fallon and all acting in concert with Fallon from using, manufacturing, importing, or selling any of Fallon’s infringing LED products.

In this case, iLight Technologies sued Fallon for infringing three iLight patents directed to certain ways of simulating cold cathode or neon lighting using, among other things, light emitting diodes (LEDs).   iLight’s patented technology enables an illumination product to have both the extensive benefits of LEDs (low energy usage, long life, durability, etc.), and the very visually striking appearance of cold cathode or neon lighting. This patented lighting technology has become particularly important as the world moves away from older lighting systems to state-of-the-art solid state lighting systems in order to obtain the advantages that this newer, environmentally friendly, energy-efficient lighting technology offers.

“Since its inception, iLight has invested significant resources in developing and delivering unique and leading-edge LED lighting technologies for our customers,” stated Mark Cleaver, Founder and Chairman. “While Fallon argued that it used a different lighting approach in its LED signage products from that disclosed and claimed in iLight’s patents, the jury unanimously agreed that Fallon’s lighting approach infringed iLight’s patents. The jury’s decision affirmed our belief in the considerable breadth of iLight’s patented illumination technology.”