Cree, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 27 cases

27 cases on record naming Cree, Inc.: 7 as claimant, 20 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

27 cases on record

Cases on record
27
As claimant
7
As respondent
20
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
F21V9/00 · F21K99/00 · F21S4/00 · F21Y101/02 · H01L33/00 · H01L23/495 · H01L33/62 · H01L33/64 · H01L33/14 · H01L33/20 · H01L33/38 · H01L33/50 · H01L27/15 · H01L33/48 · H01L33/54
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
22-1511 Optolum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 4 Mar 2022 465 d Appeal Dismissed
2022-1280 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 20 Dec 2021 10 d Closed
5:20-cv-01452 Zyrcuits IP, LLC v. Cree, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 26 Feb 2020 50 d Voluntary dismissal
2:19-cv-08141 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant C.D. Cal. 19 Sep 2019 837 d Likely Settlement
1:19-cv-00632 Lighting Science Group, Corp. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant E.D. Wis. 30 Apr 2019 56 d Stayed
5:18-cv-07594 Next Lighting, Corp. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 18 Dec 2018 59 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-01804 Cree, Inc. v. Milwaukee Wholesale, LLC Plaintiff E.D. Wis. 28 Dec 2017 326 d Judgment on the Merits
3:17-cv-06925 Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. Cree, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 4 Dec 2017 4 d Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-00687 Optolum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant M.D.N.C. 24 Jul 2017 1652 d Other
2:17-cv-04263 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant C.D. Cal. 8 Jun 2017 414 d Stayed
2:17-cv-00309 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant E.D. Tex. 13 Apr 2017 56 d Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-00342 Unity Opto Technology Co., Ltd. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant M.D.N.C. 12 Apr 2017 497 d Judgment on the Merits
2:17-cv-00158 Unity Opto Technology Co., Ltd. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant C.D. Cal. 6 Jan 2017 81 d Voluntary dismissal
8:17-cv-00027 Unity Opto Technology Co., Ltd. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant C.D. Cal. 6 Jan 2017 3 d Case Transferred
8:17-cv-00006 Unity Opto Technology Co., Ltd. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant C.D. Cal. 3 Jan 2017 97 d Case Transferred
1:16-cv-12275 Cree, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. Plaintiff D. Mass. 11 Nov 2016 252 d Likely Settlement
2:16-cv-03828 Optolum Incorporated v. Cree Incorporated Defendant D. Ariz. 3 Nov 2016 263 d Case Transferred
6:16-cv-01176 Jakuta Diodes, LLC v. Cree, Inc. Defendant E.D. Tex. 21 Sep 2016 41 d Voluntary dismissal
2:16-cv-00565 Harvatek Corporation v. Cree, Inc. Defendant C.D. Cal. 26 Jan 2016 55 d Likely Settlement
1:15-cv-00535 Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant M.D.N.C. 7 Jul 2015 716 d Likely Settlement
337-TA-947 Cree, Inc. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc. Plaintiff United States International Trade Commission 18 Feb 2015 707 d Closed
3:15-cv-00022 Cree, Inc. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Wis. 12 Jan 2015 86 d Closed
3:14-cv-05353 Harvatek Corporation v. Cree, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 5 Dec 2014 234 d Likely Settlement
3:14-cv-00737 Cree, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Wis. 28 Oct 2014 357 d Likely Settlement
3:14-cv-00620 Cree, Inc. v. Harvatek Corporation Plaintiff W.D. Wis. 15 Sep 2014 595 d Likely Settlement
3:14-cv-00621 Cree, Inc. v. Kingbright Electric Co., Ltd. Plaintiff W.D. Wis. 15 Sep 2014 602 d Likely Settlement
2:14-cv-02004 Honeywell International, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Defendant D.N.J. 31 Mar 2014 568 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Cree, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Cree is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.