Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On July 28, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL of invalidity in favor of the patent owner, Super Lighting, finding that the district court abused its discretion in excluding CH’s relevant evidence pertaining to establishing the on-sale bar. As a result, the case was remanded for a new trial on validity of the patents.

Background

Super Lighting is a world-leading manufacturer of light-emitting diode (“LED”) lighting products, headquartered in Jiaxing, China. CH is also a China-based manufacturer and global supplier of LED lighting products. In January 2020, Super Lighting sued CH Lighting in the Western District of Texas for patent infringement.

Three of Super Lighting’s asserted patents eventually went to trial—U.S. Patent Nos. 10,295,125 (“the ’125 patent”), 10,352,540 (“the ’540 patent”), and 9,939,140 (“the ’140 patent”). All three patents generally relate to LED tube lamps. The ’125 and ’540 patents together were referred to as the “tube patents,” as both relate to purported structural improvements in LED tube lamps.

As part of its invalidity case, CH Lighting intended to assert an invalidity defense based on the AIA on-sale bar of § 102(a)(1). Specifically, CH Lighting intended to argue that the tube patents were invalid in view of three third-party LED tube lamp products—the “Cree tube,” the “MaxLite” tube, and the “Philips tube.” Before trial, the district court excluded evidence offered by CH Lighting to show that the prior art LED tube lamp products were on sale before the effective filing dates of the tube patents. First, the district court excluded MaxLite’s representative Mr. Marsh, who was listed by CH Lighting and would have authenticated the “MaxLite documents” which purportedly showed that the MaxLite tube was on sale. Mr. Marsh was not originally listed as witness, but was later identified by CH Lighting when it learned that the originally listed witness could not attend trial due to a conflict. The district court blamed CH Lighting for not identifying Mr. Mash in advance to “give sufficient notice to [Super Lighting]” which witnesses would authenticate documents. Second, the district court excluded an internal Super Lighting presentation (“DX-41”), believing it was directed to the issue of inequitable conduct that CH Lighting dropped before trial. The DX-41 document, if admitted, would have been used to demonstrate that the Cree tube and the Philips tube were on sale.

During trial, CH Lighting’s invalidity expert proceeded to testify that the tube patents were invalid in view of the prior art tubes, regardless. The testimony was based on photographs of teardowns of the tubes, and the tubes’ unauthenticated specification sheets, and related documents. Subsequently, the district court granted Super Lighting’s Rule 50(a) motion for JMOL that the tube patents were not invalid on the ground of an on-sale bar.

Issue

CH Lighting raised several issues on appeal, among them, were the district court’s grant of the JMOL as well as several evidentiary rulings the JMOL grant was based on.

Holdings and Reasoning

Under Fifth Circuit law, the Federal Circuit reviews a district court’s grant of JMOL de novo but a district court’s evidentiary rulings, including a decision on the admission of expert testimony, for abuse of discretion.

First, CH Lighting argued that the district court erred in granting JMOL to Super Lighting because the expert’s testimony was sufficient to establish that the prior art tubes embodied the claimed inventions and were ready for patenting, which Super Lighting did not dispute. The Federal Circuit disagreed, and agreed with the district court that CH Lighting’s expert did not have personal knowledge that the prior art tubes were on sale and his testimony thus was not supported by record evidence.

Next, CH Lighting argued that the district court abused its discretion in excluding Mr. Marsh from authenticating the MaxLite documents and in excluding the DX-41 document. The Federal Circuit agreed that excluding Mr. Marsh’s authentication testimony was an abuse of discretion. The Federal Circuit noted that no Federal Rule or local rule requires parties to identify in advance which witnesses would authenticate documents, and thus no reasonable basis existed for the district court’s decision to exclude Mr. Marsh from authenticating documents previously identified as trial exhibits (the MaxLite documents). Regarding the DX-41 document, the Federal Circuit found that the district court’s justification that DX-41 “only deal[t] with inequitable conduct” was plainly contradicted by the record. CH Lighting’s counsel stated that they “[did not] offer this document for any inequitable conduct purpose” and intended to use it only to demonstrate that “these third-party products of Cree, as well as Philips, were available on the market because Super Lighting was able to have” them in its possession.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL to Super Lighting, and remanded the case for a new trial on the invalidity.