2:26-cv-10916
Luna Lite LLC v. Dexcowin Global Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Luna Lite, LLC (North Carolina)
- Defendant: Dexcowin Global, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wagner, Anderson & Bright P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:26-cv-10916, C.D. Cal., 09/23/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant has a place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s dental X-ray devices infringe a patent related to a system for orienting an X-ray projector using light-based guides and microprocessor-based alignment verification.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for accurate alignment of dental X-ray emitters to capture usable images, aiming to replace manual alignment and uncomfortable physical bite-wing holders with a computer-assisted guidance system.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-03-09 | U.S. Patent 10,905,386 Priority Date |
| 2021-02-02 | U.S. Patent 10,905,386 Issued |
| 2026-09-23 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,905,386 - "Orienting X-Ray Projection for Dental Imagery"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,905,386, “Orienting X-Ray Projection for Dental Imagery,” issued February 2, 2021 (the “’386 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that manual aiming of dental X-ray projectors can lead to inaccuracies, rendering images "impaired or even useless" ’386 Patent, col. 1:12-14 It also notes that existing physical holders used to orient X-ray film can "induce discomfort in patients" ’386 Patent, col. 1:19-20
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an apparatus and method for aiming an X-ray camera that uses a combination of light projectors and a microprocessor ’386 Patent, abstract A chassis with light projectors is mounted on the X-ray device and projects light beams onto the patient's face at predefined reference points ’386 Patent, col. 2:7-12 ’386 Patent, col. 3:42-49 A microprocessor compares the actual position of the X-ray projector to the predetermined position of the patient (based on computer-mapped reference points) and actuates an indicator to signal when proper alignment is achieved, at which point the operator can take the X-ray ’386 Patent, abstract ’386 Patent, col. 2:13-21 Figure 1 of the patent illustrates the system, showing the radiant energy projector (10) with attached lighting projectors (104) aimed at a patient (12).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve the accuracy and efficiency of dental radiography by replacing subjective manual alignment with a data-driven, guided process, potentially reducing the need for retakes and minimizing patient discomfort.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent apparatus Claim 9 and independent method Claim 1 ’386 Patent, col. 5:8-40 ’386 Patent, col. 6:18-47
- Independent Claim 9 (Apparatus) essential elements include:
- A chassis with a plurality of lighting projectors.
- A mounting to secure the chassis on the radiant energy projector.
- A microprocessor with instructions for comparing the projector's positional data to the patient's predetermined positional data to determine alignment.
- An automated indicator, controlled by the microprocessor, to signal when alignment is achieved.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) essential elements include:
- Determining a plurality of reference points on the patient's external surface using computerized mapping.
- Placing an energy responsive image forming medium (e.g., film) proximate the object area.
- Projecting an indicator light beam onto the patient.
- Using the computer-generated reference points to assess registration of the radiant energy projector.
- Operating the projector to generate the image when registration meets a predetermined threshold.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Product Identification: The Model CS 2500P COCOON and the Cocoon SOLO (the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶11
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are apparatuses for taking dental X-rays Compl. ¶11
- The infringement allegations are based on features described in the user manual for the Model CS 2500P Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶17 These features include an "aiming light guide (500) with LED (101)," an "OLED screen," an "exposure lamp indicator," and "automated light-based alignment feedback" Compl. ¶12
- The complaint suggests these features work together to provide a microprocessor-controlled system for aligning the X-ray device before taking an image Compl. ¶12
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 9 of the ’386 Patent by containing the elements listed below Compl. ¶¶11-12 The complaint also alleges direct infringement of method Claim 1 by using the Accused Products as described in the user manual Compl. ¶13
’386 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a chassis including a plurality of lighting projectors; | A chassis that includes an "aiming light guide (500) with LED (101) at emission hole (600)". | ¶12 | col. 2:7-8 |
| a mounting enabling securing of the chassis on the radiant energy projector... | An "LED built into X-ray irradiation part (100), integrated into the device body". | ¶12 | col. 2:8-12 |
| a microprocessor having computer instructions loaded thereinto for comparing positional data of the radiant energy projector to predetermined positional data of the patient...to determine proper alignment... | An "OLED screen, exposure lamp indicator, trigger logic, 30-secon auto-shutoff, all requiring microprocessor control". | ¶12 | col. 2:13-21 |
| an automated indicator actuatable by the microprocessor to indicate when the positional data of the radiant energy projector is aligned with the positional data of the patient. | An "aiming light activated by trigger, auto-timeout at 30 seconds, green/yellow exposure lamp, an automated light-based alignment feedback". | ¶12 | col. 2:17-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the accused "aiming light guide (500) with LED (101)" constitutes the claimed "plurality of lighting projectors." The claim requires more than one projector, while the complaint's description may be interpreted as pointing to a single light source and guide. A further significant scope question is whether an "LED built into X-ray irradiation part (100)" can be considered a "mounting," a term that the patent specification associates with structural connectors like clips and clamps ’386 Patent, col. 2:38-40
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the microprocessor function is met by features "requiring microprocessor control" Compl. ¶12 The court will need to determine if the accused devices actually perform the specific step of "comparing positional data of the radiant energy projector to predetermined positional data of the patient" as required by the claim, or if the cited features perform a different, non-infringing function.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "plurality of lighting projectors"
Context and Importance: This term appears in independent Claim 9. Its construction is critical because the complaint alleges this limitation is met by an "aiming light guide (500) with LED (101)" Compl. ¶12 The defense may argue that this describes a single projector system, not a "plurality."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "plurality," so a court may default to its plain and ordinary meaning of "two or more."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to "a plurality of lighting projectors 104" ’386 Patent, col. 2:8 and Figure 1 depicts multiple, distinct projectors (104) arranged around the chassis. A defendant may argue this consistent depiction limits the term to multiple, separate emitter units.
The Term: "mounting"
Context and Importance: This term from Claim 9 is allegedly met by an "LED built into X-ray irradiation part (100)" Compl. ¶12 Practitioners may focus on this term because the allegation appears to conflate a structural, securing component with an electronic, light-emitting one.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plaintiff might argue that any structure that serves to hold the chassis in place relative to the projector meets the term's requirements, even if it is integrated with other components.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the mounting (106) as enabling "securing of chassis 102 on radiant energy projector 10" ’386 Patent, col. 2:9-10 and provides concrete examples such as "clips, clamps, threaded fasteners, friction fit and/or other devices" ’386 Patent, col. 2:38-40 This language strongly suggests a component whose primary function is mechanical attachment.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement. However, in alleging direct infringement of method Claim 1, it notes that "Dexcowin's user manual... explains how to use this apparatus correctly" Compl. ¶17 This factual allegation could potentially be used to support a future claim of induced infringement, which requires showing that the defendant actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., end-users) to perform the infringing method steps.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement, nor does it plead facts suggesting Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’386 Patent.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present fundamental questions of claim scope and the matching of claim language to accused product functionality. The resolution will likely depend on the court’s construction of key terms and its evaluation of the technical evidence.
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the structural term "mounting," described in the patent as a mechanical fastener, be construed to cover an integrated electronic component like an LED, as the complaint alleges? This raises a question of a potential fundamental mismatch between the claim language and the accused structure.
A second key question will be one of technical and quantitative matching: does the accused product's "aiming light guide with LED" satisfy the "plurality of lighting projectors" limitation? The case may turn on whether the accused system is factually determined to have one or more than one "projector," and how the court defines that term in the context of the patent.
A final evidentiary question will relate to functionality: does the accused microprocessor perform the specific function of "comparing positional data of the radiant energy projector to predetermined positional data of the patient," as claimed, or do the features cited in the complaint merely represent general-purpose processing that does not align with the patented method?