I have always had a huge respect for the lighting gear that Litepanels has been producing over the years, but at the beginning of the month they filed a 337 complaint with the United States International Trade Commission to halt:
…the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain LED photographic lighting devices and components thereof.
This would stop all other LED video and photo lights from being sold in the US and effectively give Litepanels a monopoly on the market.
Usually I try to keep my head out of legal matters, but this could really effect every video producer in US. LED lighting has been becoming more and more affordable and a lot of shooters have been slowly migrating to it. While Litepanels were always the high end choice and the dream of most shooters, they weren’t always in everyone’s budget. If this goes through, there may be no other option than to buy Litepanels or go back to fluorescent.
I will also openly admit that I am a bit biased in the matter. I’ve been considering developing my own LED lighting and have been working on prototypes for a few months now. If this goes through, all my work will be for not.
Read the full 337 complaint here and share your thoughts in the comments or on Twitter.
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!
The small companies affected by this don’t have the millions of dollars necessary to fight Litepanels in court, but if consumers show Litepanels that they will not tolerate a LED monopoly, there might be a chance of changing this.
[UPDATE 1]
The complaint indicates where you can contact the USITC and tell them how this will:
negatively affect the…competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
Even though it indicates that responses must be in within five business days of the initial filing of the complaint, they do mention that:
There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.
If you are afraid of Litepanels creating a monopoly and stopping affordable LED lighting from being sold in the US, I recommend you let the USITC know.
[UPDATE 2]
For those who are a little confused by all the legalize being thrown around, you can read a layman’s summary on the ITC 337 Law Blog.
[UPDATE 3]
Here are some other discussions and blog posts going on about this topic:
CheesyCam 1 and 2
SDFCPUG
b-roll.net
[UPDATE 4]
As I continue to look into this, the worse it seems. After talking to some higher-ups (who will remain nameless) it looks like Litepanels is trying to block the import of any LED used for film, video or photo, regardless if it is similar to their own designs or not.
How can this be possible when it would obviously create a monopoly? Well it’s because to the USITC and the patent office, film, video and photo are a niche market and so having a patent on LEDs for film, video and photo fits within their definitions of a patent. Those in the industry understand how massive the market really is and need to inform the USITC and patent office that Litepanels will have a massive monopoly if the 337 complaint goes through.
The legality of the complaint is currently attacking several smaller manufacturers of LED lights. However, historically in cases like this, it is very likely that they wonรขโฌ™t stop there. Soon they will be going up against the big guys like Arri, Kino Flo and Mole Richardson who are all releasing LED lights. Imagine no other LED film lighting options except Litepanels.
[UPDATE 5]
I’ve put together a short video to help better explain all of this. Please share it and continue to spread the word.
[UPDATE 6]
I know we’ve been throwing around a lot of “legalese” but the two things to really focus on are the USITC 337 complaint and the patent.
The complaint is trying to block certain other LED manufacturers from importing and selling their LED video and photo lights in the US. As we stated before, this will not stop with just this handful of manufacturers. If Litepanels wins here, they will continue up the line. Also, as we mentioned in UPDATE 1, the USITC allows for consumer responses to the complaint where this would cause a negative impact in the production of like or directly competitive articles, which is what we are encouraging people to do.
The reason this complaint is even allowed is because Litepanels has patents that state they own the rights to LED for video and film. These patents shouldn’t have ever been passed and they should be fought in court. Unfortunately, according to one law source’s estimates, it would probably take close to $5 million to fight this battle. Regardless if they won, most of the manufacturers couldn’t afford this. This is why it may be good to contact the patent office explaining the negative affects of Litepanels’ patents.
As Richard Andrewski of Cool Lights USA, one of the respondents in the 337 complaint, explains:
Litepanels is owned by Vitec Group. Here are all of the fine businesses owned by Vitec:
Anton/Bauer, Autoscript, The Camera Store, Litepanels, Microwave Service Company, Nucomm, OConnor, Petrol Bags, RF Central, Sachtler, Vinten, Vinten Radamec, Avenger, Brilliant Stages, Colorama, Gitzo, Kata, Lastolite, Litec, Manfrotto, Manfrotto Distribution, National Geographic (manufactured & distributed under licence), Tomcat, Bexel
I want you to know that every dollar you spend with these companies is helping in this fight against inexpensive lighting and no doubt other similar products.
Here’s a quote from the Vitec 2010 Annual Report:
The Group is at risk from low-cost competitors who may sell similar products at lower prices, particularly for high volume items such as the simpler photographic tripods. While the Group also sources those cheaper products from lower cost countries, it combats this threat by patenting its technologies wherever possible and taking action against any infringement, continuously innovating its products and employing significant marketing and distribution capabilities.
[UPDATE 7]
Looks like the ITC has begun their investigation of Litepanels’ 337 complaint:
On August 31, 2011, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued aรย press releaseรย announcing that it voted to institute an investigation ofCertain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereofรย (Inv. No. 337-TA-804).
Read more about this on the ITC blog.
Thanks Dozenbaloons for sharing this.
Also, in an encouraging update, ikan has officially decided to fight the Litepanels complaint:
Litepanels seeks a general exclusion order which, should they prevail, would allow them to prevent LED photographic lighting and other devices from entering the United States in the future, and without further hearings, review or approval from any outside group or governing body.
IKAN will oppose the complaint. Interested parties may contact the U. S. International Trade Commission and voice their concerns in this matter. For more information, please contact:
James R. Holbein, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.
Read more about this on ikan’s blog.
Check back here for continued updates.
Lite Panels the Bad Guy in this one. This would I an already using off the shelf LED lighting devices from other manufactures for my productions at substantially less expense.รย They need to step aside and let the market judge their products and their pricing.
Pure evil.รย I can’t wait to hear about Litepanels losing big.
what a bunch of รยฃ$^$% &*^(รยฃers…..
:/
I hate companies like that.. Let the little guys make some money for a change.รย Also, it’s gonna make life harder for independent filmmakers.รย
Anyone want to make a BOYCOTT LITEPANELS WEBSITE or even just a wordpress account??
Show those $^รยฃ$ers we’re not gonna take it.
I can’t fault Litepanels or any company for protecting their IP. I’m sure they spent considerable money on R&D, and need to recoup those cost. If you want companies to innovate and make new products that you enjoy then they need the potential to make a profit.รย I wouldn’t like itรย if someone stole my script, or pirated myรย content.รย
I agree that they should be able to maintain their patents but my issue is with blocking all LED lights for photo and video…even if those LED lights aren’t infringing on their patent.
Also, Litepanels has never lowered their prices as LED technology has gone down in price. If they are unwilling to beรย competitive, they should not be allowed to prevent others from making more affordable options.
looks like they are just singling out the companies that are infringing on them.รย I met these guys at NAB, and they are just a bunch of gaffers that started their own company.รย Why shouldรย a small American company go under due to cheap chinese knock offs.
Yes, they should be able to keep making the same out of date crap that they have always been making, and charging 2,000.00 USD for a panel that cost less than 500.00 USD to make. I had two demo panels, i wanted to see what the hype was about, after having one arch when i plugged the power supply in, and the cheap crappy plastic housing, and not to mention how dim they were, i decided that i would rather string two flashlights together than to give these idiots my money. While i am all for protecting ones intellectual property rights, i am however against those who try to block competition. If Light Panels would actually make a decent product and not butt rape everyone on price, then people would stop turning to Asia for cheaper alternatives. Its the same issue with all of the rigs, rails, and follow focus units.
Litepanels didn’t invent the LED. I believe they did perfect techniques to match sets if lights for color, but I don’t see how they could stop others from doing the same.
The link to the complain seems to go to the ITC Web site which requires registration to download documents. You can find the Acrobat (pdf) version of Litepanels’ complaint here:
http://bit.ly/qd7fLt
I have some of the cheap Asian LED’s. รย Yeah, they’re not “perfect”. รย But for the price of one Lightpanel, I have a whole lighting kit of the knock off LED’s with 7000 watts of lighting power. รย
LightPanels… รย Come down of your high horse and make your product affordable. รย Then people won’t care about Asian LED’s. รย Until then, eat your losses as Indie guys go for the better deal. รย
Damn, now you can get maybe 15,000 effective watts of LED for the price of a single lightpanels 1×1. รย Ummmmm, ya think?
This is a perfect of example of the big guys trying to stop the little guys from advancing just because they have deeper pockets. I’m sure all of us indies face similar situation we have a wonder idea to shoot some come out great, but “the gate keepers” wants $$$ in their pocket before even considering it.
OK,,What about a startup company that manufactures/assembles in the US and all the components are made in the US รย which includes leds, reflectors, casing, drivers and connectors. Will LP prevent that too from happening, since nothing is imported ? just let them try.
I will be a DV Expo and I will let LitePanels know that I will never buy there products.รย There patents are dirivative from prior art.รย I will file my own response to this scam.
“The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments” -File a Response….
I will be a DV Expo and I will let LitePanels know that I will never buy there products.รย There patents are dirivative from prior art.รย I will file my own response to this scam.
“The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments” -File a Response….
I will be a DV Expo and I will let LitePanels know that I will never buy there products.รย There patents are dirivative from prior art.รย I will file my own response to this scam.
“The complainant, proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments” -File a Response….
Litepanels is simply attempting to protect their patents, nothing wrong with that.
It should be pointed out that the filing of the 337 complaint doesn’t compel any of the named companies to stop selling their products.รย Until there is a judgement one way or another it changes nothing. It’s a standard legal maneuver.รย Send out a threatening letter and see who blinks.
Furthermore, given Litepanels is the complainant the burden is on them to prove their patents have been infringed.รย Their patents could be overly vague.รย Companies get sued all the time (Apple comes to mind) over vague patents. Litepanels is just trying to strong arm other vendors out of the market.รย No need to panic and I doubt it will make much of a difference in the short term (except spur on some panic buying).
I’m not an attorney but I play one on TV ๐
I really don’t get some of the comments here – if you’d spent a fortune on R&D and then applied for patent protection which was subsequently granted, why wouldn’t you try to enforce your patent(s) if you felt infringement was taking place? Isn’t that the whole point of patents?
Broadcast and movie-making may be creative industries but they are businesses; Litepanels is just one of many lighting companies out there who presumably want to become the market leaders and I, for one, don’t have a problem with that. It’s their job to sell products and protect their intellectual property – that’s capitalism, folks. It’s not their job to take moral responsibility for the state of the industry nor to encourage competition and I can’t see why anyone would think it is!
Saying Litepanels has the patent on all LED panel based video lights would be an extremely broad interpretation of their patent. It would be like saying McDonald’s has a patent on the hamburger. Sure they can defend theirรย recipeรย but they can’t stop others from making burgers.
I don’t know if you’ve ever used other companies LED panel lights, but they are nothing like Litepanels. Litepanels is trying to stop the import of “similar” products which compete with their products. I don’t think that should be allowed or is even legal.
Agreed!
I was going to reply to this comment but I believe Tony handled it perfectly. รย
Tony – I agree with many of your points above. I’m not familiar with the scope of Litepanels’ patent(s), my point is simply that their actions may be (on the face if it) based on the belief, rightly or wrongly, that their patents are being infringed.รย If they hold valid patents it is entirely their right to try to enforce these. If they are trying to extend beyond the scope of their patent(s) and block other companies selling their products in the US on the basis of alleged similarities rather than direct infringement, one would imagine that the authorities won’t have much time for this and will throw these claims out. I don’t see any point in us getting all bilious about it, however. Let them have their day in court and the truth will out. รย
http://patents.com/us-7140742.html
read the patent here
http://bit.ly/nSEmB5
รย I have a link to all the data in this case. The companies that are
involved and the ones the need boycotted. I have read the patents and I
do expert witness testimony and this quote รขโฌลtechnologyรขโฌย has been around
since the lite-brite toy invented by Hasbro in 1967 the only difference
is the light source and the use. Litepanels doesnรขโฌโขt even make the LEDS.
You canรขโฌโขt patent a use. This is a derivative of prior art that has
long since lost patent protection. I will be visiting DVexpo in
Pasadena and I think Litepanels needs and earful. I think I need to
make video on thisรขโฌยฆ.
I thought you could patent a method, if not a use. Pardon my ignorance, but surely if the patent has been granted, it has been examined by the patent office and found to be ‘novel’ as far as any prior art is concerned. Sounds like you should be complaining to the patent office for granting the IP rather than to Litepanels for applying for it in the first place. Oh, and I would seriously question the wisdom / manners of sticking a camera in someone’s face at a show and asking them to explain themselves. Expect a blank look from a sales guy!
รย Patents are real until they have been defended.รย The patent office is a bunch of morons.รย I think this is a patten the can be defeated.รย The company doing this need to get their ass kicked.
I have found more information on LitePanels.รย They have been suing companies since 2006 with not a mention of it in the press.รย Creative Cow will not allow an mention of LP legal actions.รย The advertising cash is more that there journalistic integrity.รย They sued Gekko in California and then moved it to Texas where they were sure to get a positive verdict because Gekko didn’t have the money to defend the suit.รย I have done expert witness testimony on cases like this and it is a scam.รย I can work around theses patents and I guess I will just have to make public the work a rounds.รย The more I read the madder I get…
http://bit.ly/qhowwE
I’m sorry but I do not understand the point you are trying to make here. The Patent Office are (I think) obliged to investigate the claims in any patent application against prior art and then either accept that the patent can be granted or reject the application. As I said before, if Litepanels or any other company applies for a patent and manages to secure very broad protection, that’s hardly their fault – blame the USPTO.รย รย
Goes to show they are an obnoxious and arrogant company trying to swing a patent troll stick.รย And it looks like they have done this before. Their patents don’t seem novel and not worth the paper they’re printed on.รย LED for video acquisition was done years before they filed (remember security cameras with a ring of LEDs? )
The companies sited in the complaint should band together and attempt to over-turn the patents.รย
Social media can bring this to our industry and we, the customers, can vote with our lack of patronage.รย Spread the word, it’s in our best interest!
Goes to show they are an obnoxious and arrogant company trying to swing a patent troll stick.รย And it looks like they have done this before. Their patents don’t seem novel and not worth the paper they’re printed on.รย LED for video acquisition was done years before they filed (remember security cameras with a ring of LEDs? )
The companies sited in the complaint should band together and attempt to over-turn the patents.รย
Social media can bring this to our industry and we, the customers, can vote with our lack of patronage.รย Spread the word, it’s in our best interest!
This kind of stuff drives me insane. So this is just stopping the “import” of other LED lights. What about if we make our own LED light panels? Someone with enough ingenuity could definitely make their own DIY light panels. I’m sure someone already has. This is ridiculous. Thanks for the update.รย
Well the complaint also says the “sale after import” which goes in line with Litepanels other lawsuits of US manufacturers. Basically they want to control the sale of all LED lights used for film, video or photo.
Man i hate those guys!
Does anyone know how to make a good petition?
Would that even help?
I mean we could at least show litepanels that we won’t buy their products if they go ahead with this.. :/
Petitions, USITC letters, complaints…there all good ideas. I think it’s important that this subject doesn’t stay silent otherwise the face of video lighting will be very different in the coming months and years.
@Dozenbaloons – They are not just blocking imported LED lights. It appears they are after every company that uses LED lighting for photo and video regardless of where they are made. Basically if you want to use LED lighting for photo and video, you have to use Litepanels.
From what I gathered, the patent infringement is about the panel type light that uses multiple teeney weeney leds. Let us assume that a startup company here in US designs a led lamp with a SINGLE high power lighting class led, a led that outputs 800 lumens per watt and in conjunction with a reflector/lens will output 1800 lux at 3 ft. with a high CRI at 3200K without any need for a diffuser as the beam is a beautiful 60 degree wide without any hotspots. AND, this light will be not advertised as a video/film/movie/broadcast/photo light but as a utility lantern that has many uses as the buyer seems fit. Will that be under the patent infringement ? if so, all them led lights at Wallmart,Home Depot, Lowe’s, etc. will be taken off the shelves as they MAY BE USED FOR VIDEO ? Will Philips, Osram, GE, Luxeon, Cree, and all the led makers themselves be also in the stew ? I don’t think so.
I won’t buy anything from lightpanels. Maybe they should think of making their over priced LED’s a little more affordable.
I’m tweeting this to the 700+ indie and other people in this industry that follow me.
I’m here to support.รย
I actually expect the will get a lot of ‘earfulls” from people at shows and conventions..รย
I would be one of them.. รย
This is Richard Andrewski, one of the respondents in the 337 complaint.
Litepanels is owned by Vitec Group. Here are all of the fine businesses owned by Vitec:
– Anton/Bauer
– Autoscript
– The Camera Store
– Litepanels
– Microwave Service Company
– Nucomm
– OConnor
– Petrol Bags
– RF Central
– Sachtler
– Vinten
– Vinten Radamec
– Avenger
– Brilliant Stages
– Colorama
– Gitzo
– Kata
– Lastolite
– Litec
– Manfrotto
– Manfrotto Distribution
– National Geographic (manufactured & distributed under licence)
– Tomcat
– Bexel
I want you to know that every dollar you spend with these companies is
helping in this fight against inexpensive lighting and no doubt other
similar products. Here’s a quote from the Vitec 2010 Annual Report:
The Group is at risk from low-cost competitors who may sell similar
products at lower prices, particularly for high volume items such as
the simpler photographic tripods. While the Group also sources those
cheaper products from lower cost countries, it combats this threat by
patenting its technologies wherever possible and taking action against
any infringement, continuously innovating its products and employing
significant marketing and distribution capabilities.
Richard Andrewski
Cool Lights USA
LOL, have you guys seen that “patent”? Itรยดs pathetic.
Abstract
A lighting effects system comprises an arrangement of lamp elements, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs) or other light elements, on a panel or frame. The panel or frame may be relatively lightweight, and may include one or more circuit boards for direct mounting of the lamp elements. The panel or frame may have an opening through which a camera can view. A mounting bracket and assembly may be used for attaching the panel or frame to a camera. The lamp elements may be electronically controllable so as to provide differing intensity levels, collectively, individually, or in designated groups, and may be strobed, dimmed or otherwise controlled according to manually selected or programmable patterns. Different color lamp elements may be mounted on the same panel/frame, and, in particular, daylight and tungsten colored lamp elements may be mounted on the same panel/frame and their relative intensities selectively controlled by control circuitry.
This – so called – patent was issued in September 27, 2005! At this time, I already had at least 3 LED panels from 3 different Chinese companies.
So what completely retard schmuck is granting such a “patent”?
Is this just plain douchebageness or does this need some money transfer to accounts in Switzerland ?
At this “patent office” I could probably having a patent on candle sticks any day.
This is gonna back lash big time on Vitec, or as we say in Germany “Boomerang Effect”.
At least my company will avoid Vitec Products like the plaque in the future.
everyone should encourage the named defendants in the complaint to make their positions known to the court, if they canรขโฌโขt afford a lawyer, they should be encourage to at least write a letter to the court as to their position.
also us as consumers should write a letter too, to make clear that litepanels is trying to bully its competitors with unjustifiable patent claims.
all the websites with an interest should publish specific addresses where consumers can write to.
รย And further claims in same patent talk about a dimmer and (are you ready for this) a stand adapter.รย Yes a stand adapter is now considered a unique element of Litepanels units.รย If you read that patent a certain way, they could just as well be talking about a fluorescent light (“other light elements”?).
The patent office was totally asleep the day they put this through.
It is absolutely the case that the reason these patents have never been invalidated in court is the film and video lighting market is relatively small compared to many of the other types of cases heard before the ITC (or even in normal patent court for that matter).รย Thus any one (or even several small) respondees don’t have or can’t justify the budget to fight this thing.รย It is absolutely a good thing to write letters, emails, etc. to the US Patent Office.
More immediately though, I recommend everyone contact the US ITC at this website:
http://www.usitc.gov/scripts/contact_us.asp
You can also send letters which I highly recommend over emails to:
U.S. International Trade รย รย Commission500 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20436
USA
Contact Phone: 202.205.2000
They are absolutely interested and its going to be question before them how the consumer will be affected because that is one criteria they consider in cases such as this.รย You and I know that at least 90% of the people buying the more inexpensive panels couldn’t or perhaps just wouldn’t buy the more expensive panel at least 4 times the price of the more inexpensive one.รย This is therefore a case of multiple tiers of products and customers, but they don’t want multiple tiers, they only want one tier.รย Imagine if there were only expensive DV cameras.รย Imagine if there were only expensive monitors, expensive tripods, etc.รย There would be no indy market as we know it today.รย What if some heavyweights had come in with a patent in the camera area?รย There wouldn’t be a different tier of product nor would the “indy” or “semipro” market have been created.รย In effect the lower priced products created a market which didn’t exist up to that point.รย
Litepanels has made the decision not to serve the lower tier of customer by continuing to sell only the expensive options.รย They have had years to rectify this and chose not to rather spending money to fight lower cost competitors–particularly the smaller ones like our company and the others in this ITC investigation.รย Thus, it should be obvious they want you to buy the more expensive panel and are pretty much putting a gun to your head using courts and lawyers to do this.
I urge you to write today to the USPTO and USITC.รย Do it with all the urgency you can and with the idea that someone wants to force you into options you may not agree to and that would absolutely be the case if other tiers of product are eliminated.รย Concentrate in your letters on what will happen if there is only the higher priced option and also concentrate on the fact that Litepanels has not filled this niche of the lower tiered product which many of you is the only one you consider.รย There would therefore be a vacuum that would not be filled and a market would be killed that was created by lower priced, “semi-pro” products (just the same as the semi-pro DV cameras have done for the market).รย Talk about that this is a small and specialized market and the respondents in patent cases such as this simply don’t have the funds to fight these patents which many feel should never have been grated on the basis of obviousness to someone skilled in the art.รย Those are the main points any communication should have.
By the way, here is a link to all the patents in question, not sure if someone else gave it:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Contrast+Lighting+Services&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT