LED lights

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light..

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You raise a few good points but still not accurate in my opinion.

1. The first high power lumiled LEDs came out in 1998 or 1999 I believe. Yes they were expensive but they were already being incorporated into products such as flashlights by 2001. Orbitec filed their patent on December 15th, 2004 and IRRC they may have filed a PPA a year earlier so that would have been no earlier than December 15th, 2003. So high power LEDs had been around. There is also some prior art published in Advanced Aquarist and possibly elsewhere testing LEDs as aquarium lighting earlier in 2003. Besides, Orbitec's patent simply stated LEDs and does not make a distinction between low power or high power etc. They state that no commercial LED systems were available which is true but the idea had already been published by others. There is also the issue I have raised about obviousness. The question still remains as to whether using a newly available lighting source to light aquariums is novel or obvious.

2. Yes it is true that LEDs degrade more slowly and differently than other lights but their rate of degradation is entirely dependent on how they are cooled and on the particular environment and use. Orbitec implied that they do not degrade which is somewhat inaccurate. In any case, if you invented the longer life LEDs then you could patent them but I do not think a longer duty cycle is a valid patenting point for a use patent. It is obvious because the emitters last longer so you don't have to change them as often. Nothing surprising there.

3. If you read the patent it is very specific as to what is claimed (as patents must be). That is why you see multiple claims in patents to try to cover various bases. The patent claims:

1. A combination marine habitat and lighting system therefor comprising: a marine habitat having an open top defined by a top edge and a lighting system including: a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when said housing is connected to said top edge and an opposite outer side; an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

2. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.

3. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs.

4. The combination of claim 1 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.

5. A lighting system for a marine habitat of the type having an open top defined by a top edge, said lighting system comprising: a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when said housing is connected to said top edge and an opposite outer side; an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

6. The lighting system of claim 5 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.

7. The lighting system of claim 5 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs.

8. The combination of claim 5 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.

The operative part to look at is this:

an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

What is claimed is that combination of elements. So a straight LED array without a controller for controlling the activation status and intensity should be outside the scope of the patent. I have reviewed enough patents to be fairly sure of that. That is why you are seeing a bunch of fixtures with LEDs and no controller or combo fixtures with LEDs and T5s etc. but no controller. AI felt they had to license the patent because they have a controller.

4. Yes the drug industry is heavily regulated from the standpoint of marketing approval and sales but that is separate from the patenting. Dugs are patented like anything else and are subject to the same criteria as mousetraps or toothbrushes when it comes to patents. Completely separate criteria and governance than drug approvals. You can have a patent issued on a drug but have it fail in testing and not be approved for sale.

5. The same principals apply no matter what you are patenting. If your rotatiller guide is obvious to those skilled in the art of rotatillers and is similar to other rotatiller guides, even if you made it out of different parts, it is not novel and non-obvious and you could not patent it. You would have to have some surprising improvement over other rotatiller guides in order to be able to patent it. Have a look at this:

http://web.mit.edu/invent/h-chapters/h-three.html

The really important part in my opinion is:

Nonobvious: To be patentable, your invention must give new and nonobvious results compared to known approaches. Ordinary differences in size, materials or other obvious modifications are generally not patentable.

So even though I am not an expert on lighting systems and engineering I do know how patents work and understand the criteria to make something patentable. I still don't see anything surprising or non-obvious in Orbitec's patent. Using LEDs to light an aquarium does not give new and non-obvious results compared to T5, Mh etc. I can almost guarantee that they had a patent examiner who didn't know much about lighting systems or aquarium lighting and just went with what was in the patent with minimal research into it.

Cheers,

Ron

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Hi Steve,



1. The first high power lumiled LEDs came out in 1998 or 1999 I believe. Yes they were expensive but they were already being incorporated into products such as flashlights by 2001. Orbitec filed their patent on December 15th, 2004 and IRRC they may have filed a PPA a year earlier so that would have been no earlier than December 15th, 2003.
Cheers,

Ron

um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve

What's the patent number? I have two patents I am looking at:

1. 7,220,018 which was filed on Dec 15, 2004 (and I now see it lists a PPA filed Dec. 15, 2003) and issued on May 22, 2007.

2. 7,473,008 filed March 22, 2007 which is the new continuation where they are now trying to claim all LED lighting even without a controller.

[StirCrazy]

ok so the first patent was applied for on dec 2003. the 2002 one was a supporting doccument. in there prior art statment they say there are many systems availble producing light capable of sustaining marine life, but none using LEDs as the light source. so that is a valid point.

one thing I have been wondering about is the anti trust laws pertaining to monopolies.. I think for them to get around this they would have to grant all licencing rights to companies willing to pay there fee.

proving prior art in court seams to be the only way to bust this patent but.. it costs 180.00us just to file your prior art for them to concider and prior art has to be certified by a qualified inspector at the time. so pictures of systems over our tanks 10 years ago doesn't cut it.

I would like to see this busted as much as anyone but I think that most big companies are just waiting for review years to see if they renew, or waiting till it expiers as it is to hard and very very expensive to fight a patent that is inplace.

Steve

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

ok so the first patent was applied for on dec 2003. the 2002 one was a supporting doccument. in there prior art statment they say there are many systems availble producing light capable of sustaining marine life, but none using LEDs as the light source. so that is a valid point.

one thing I have been wondering about is the anti trust laws pertaining to monopolies.. I think for them to get around this they would have to grant all licencing rights to companies willing to pay there fee.

proving prior art in court seams to be the only way to bust this patent but.. it costs 180.00us just to file your prior art for them to concider and prior art has to be certified by a qualified inspector at the time. so pictures of systems over our tanks 10 years ago doesn't cut it.

I would like to see this busted as much as anyone but I think that most big companies are just waiting for review years to see if they renew, or waiting till it expiers as it is to hard and very very expensive to fight a patent that is inplace.

Steve

Yes, the fact that no commercially available systems were out is a valid statement but you have to ask why that is? Is it because nobody thought of it or it wasn't an obvious application or because the costs would have been to high. The PFO solaris fixtures were thousands of dollars when they came out in 2005 or 2006. imagine what a decent LED fixture would have cost in 2003 or 2004? Would a 3' or 4' light fixture costing $10,000 have been a viable product? The fact nothing was commercially available does not make the idea patentable. Should I be able to patent a personal rocketship? No personal rocketships are available now because the costs would be astronomical (sorry for the pun), not because it is a new and patentable idea.

Apparently there are some moves afoot in the US for a third party submission to review the patent but it's not all public yet. It's tied into the recent request for prior art references on reefbuilders. There is some discussion of it on nano-reef as well. I'm happy to lend whatever support they need for that if I can. I think I should probably start a new thread for that later today when I have time...

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

or because the costs would have been to high. The PFO solaris fixtures were thousands of dollars when they came out in 2005 or 2006. ...

ya they were a couple K, but about 1 to 1.5K of that was probably profit for PFO. I actualy think PFO was stupid and let greed run there release of the solaris, as they new there was a patent aplication but they decided to cash in on it while they could befor the patent was granted, which is viable, but instead of just stopping production when the patent was granted they decided to figh it as the solaris was a cash cow for them..

they were using exhisting extrusions which cost them next to nothing, they were using off shore LEDs which are a fraction of the price of the cree. and they were driving them at lower levels which reduced the requirment for a heat sink. I would be willing to bet including labour there cost was under 500 bucks, and they probably sold the one unit to the stores for about 1700 and then the stores resold for about 2 to 2.5K

If they wouldn't have had as many problems they did with the cheep LEDs burning out they would have made a killing, but they had to many warenty issues which ate into there profit a little to much.

Steve

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

ya they were a couple K, but about 1 to 1.5K of that was probably profit for PFO. I actualy think PFO was stupid and let greed run there release of the solaris, as they new there was a patent aplication but they decided to cash in on it while they could befor the patent was granted, which is viable, but instead of just stopping production when the patent was granted they decided to figh it as the solaris was a cash cow for them..

they were using exhisting extrusions which cost them next to nothing, they were using off shore LEDs which are a fraction of the price of the cree. and they were driving them at lower levels which reduced the requirment for a heat sink. I would be willing to bet including labour there cost was under 500 bucks, and they probably sold the one unit to the stores for about 1700 and then the stores resold for about 2 to 2.5K

If they wouldn't have had as many problems they did with the cheep LEDs burning out they would have made a killing, but they had to many warenty issues which ate into there profit a little to much.

Steve

I don't think that is a completely fair assessment. PFO used Phillips Luxeon emitters in their fixtures from day one. Now I have spent around $1200 to $1300 so far to buy parts for my DIY 48" fixture and that is with very good volume pricing through the nano-reef group buy for alot of it and also includes a free housing and cheap used heatsinks from eBay.

So I would be surprised if the cost of materials for a Solaris fixture was significantly less than that in 2006 even with their crappy excuses for heatsinks (which were probably responsible for the emitters burning out). now that also doesn't account for the R&D work to create a commercial fixture, tooling for bespoke parts if necessary, labour (even if it is cheap in China), shipping from China (not cheap), and any safety/electrical certification they required in North America. And then you have your operations cost in North America for offices, warehouses, staff etc.

Now normal retail markup is 40% so if the retail was $3500 then the wholesale price from PFO was probably $2100. I don't think it is unusual for a manufacturer to have a markup of 100% over the cost of materials therefore I don't think the pricing was wildly out of line. You may want the manufacturers to have razor thin margins but they won't bother if they can't make any money.