Dense Matrix LLC v. Signify North America Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dense Matrix LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Signify North America Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01034, D. Del., 08/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has an established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's solid-state lighting products infringe a patent related to light systems having integrated broadband optical communication capabilities.
• Technical Context: The technology involves embedding high-speed, light-based data communication functions into conventional LED lighting fixtures, turning them into nodes of a smart building network.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,192,030. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-09-01	'597 Patent Priority Date
2015-10-13	'597 Patent Application Filing Date
2017-11-21	'597 Patent Issue Date
2026-08-13	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,826,597 - "Solid state light system with broadband optical communication capability"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,826,597 ("Solid state light system with broadband optical communication capability"), issued November 21, 2017 (the "'597 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes a disconnect between building control systems (like HVAC and lighting) and modern wireless data networks (like Wi-Fi) ʼ597 Patent, col. 1:11-39 It identifies a need to create "smart buildings" that can automatically control environmental conditions while also providing broadband data communication without requiring extensive new wiring ʼ597 Patent, col. 1:40-44
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system integrated into a standard light bulb or tube form factor ʼ597 Patent, abstract This system contains LEDs that are coupled to a controller and an optical transceiver ʼ597 Patent, abstract The LEDs serve a dual purpose: they generate light for illumination and are also used to transmit and receive data as part of a broadband optical network ʼ597 Patent, col. 2:55-59 The system architecture, as shown in Figure 5, includes a microcontroller (3203) and dedicated driver (3205) and receiver (3207) circuitry to manage the LED's (3206) dual functions of illumination and data communication over an "optical link" ʼ597 Patent, Fig. 5
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to leverage ubiquitous lighting infrastructure to create a low-cost, easily retrofittable "smart building" network, eliminating the need for separate data cabling and allowing for integrated control of building systems and high-speed data transfer ʼ597 Patent, col. 3:60-66 '597 Patent, col. 4:5-9

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts unspecified "Exemplary '597 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶11 The analysis below focuses on Independent Claim 1, a representative system claim.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • One or more LEDs electrically coupled to a conventional light connector and an optical transceiver, with at least one LED associated with a "predetermined geographical position" and "optically coupled to a broadband optical network greater than 1 Mbps."
  • A controller that adjusts LED light output and communicates over the broadband optical network.
  • A "mobile device" near a user that receives light from the LED to obtain the "geographical position data" and provides information about the user or object over the broadband optical network.
• The complaint suggests that infringement of other claims, including under the doctrine of equivalents, may also be alleged Compl. ¶11

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an "Exhibit 2" Compl. ¶11, which was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It makes only conclusory allegations that Defendant's products practice the claimed technology Compl. ¶16

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17 Without this exhibit, the complaint itself offers only a conclusory narrative, stating that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '597 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '597 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶16 No specific technical explanation of how the accused products allegedly meet the claim limitations is provided in the body of the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "broadband optical network," as used in the patent, can be interpreted to cover the RF-based mesh networks (e.g., Zigbee, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth) commonly used in modern smart lighting systems. The patent's focus on light-based communication could suggest a narrower scope that excludes such RF networks.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "mobile device" to "receiv[e] light from the LED to receive the geographical position data." A key factual question will be whether the accused systems transmit location data to a mobile device via modulated light, as the claim language suggests, or whether they use a different mechanism, such as user setup in an app over a standard RF link (e.g., Bluetooth or Wi-Fi), to associate a light with a location.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"broadband optical network"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the scope of the claims. The infringement case will likely depend on whether the defendant's system, which may use radio frequency (RF) networking, can be characterized as an "optical network."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "broadband" in relative terms, comparing it to the speeds of WiFi, cable, and DSL, suggesting it relates to data rate rather than the physical medium '597 Patent, col. 7:1-33 One might argue that any high-speed network that includes optical components could qualify.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently discusses communication via light. The abstract mentions "optical channels," and the detailed description discusses tunneling protocols over an "Optical Building Automation network" ('597 Patent, abstract; '597 Patent, col. 7:25-30). This context suggests the "network" itself is one where data is transmitted between nodes via optical links, not RF links.

"mobile device ... receiving light from the LED to receive the geographical position data"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific method of data transfer from the light fixture to a mobile device. Its construction will be critical for determining whether the accused products, which likely use smartphone apps, infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that if a mobile app communicates with a light fixture and is aware of its location (e.g., "Living Room Lamp"), it has effectively "received" position data, and that "receiving light" could be interpreted more loosely than a direct data-in-light transmission.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language points to a specific technical mechanism: data encoded in light. The specification reinforces this by describing a system where a badge-based transceiver receives a "local coordinate" from a light, enabling indoor position tracking '597 Patent, col. 12:12-18 This supports a construction requiring direct optical data transmission from the LED to a sensor on the mobile device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on an infringing use of the products Compl. ¶14 The allegation of knowledge is based on the service of the complaint itself Compl. ¶15
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful" but requests enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a finding of an "exceptional" case under § 285 Compl., prayer D Compl., prayer E.i The factual basis for this claim appears to be alleged continued infringement after receiving notice of the patent via the filing of the complaint Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶15

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A question of network architecture: Does the accused system's underlying data network qualify as a "broadband optical network" as required by the claims, or does its reliance on conventional radio-frequency protocols (like Zigbee or Wi-Fi) place it outside the patent's scope?
2. A question of data transmission: Will evidence show that the accused system's mobile device interaction meets the specific limitation of "receiving light from the LED to receive the geographical position data," or is location data handled through a fundamentally different, non-optical mechanism?
3. An evidentiary threshold question: Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, a primary issue for the court will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to support a plausible claim that the accused products' technical operation aligns with the specific and arguably narrow requirements of the asserted patent claims.