PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.
Several firms of the sector have charged us to contest, on behalf of and on for the account of them, the validity of the Patent Licence Agreement with you recently undersigned.
In fact, this agreement covers a number of patents, the main of which have been cancelled by the Federal Patents Court (Bundespatentgericht) of the Federal Republic of Germany in Munich, with judgements provisionally enforcealble, as per the following table:
|PATENT||MAIN SUBJECT||EP EXPIRY DATE||NOTES|
|EP0890059||Double Optics. Example: luminaire with two or more LEDs, each one with its own lens above it.||22 JAN 2018 Priority: 23 JAN 1997 EP, Filling: 22 JAN 1998||REVOCATION ACTION FILED By PANASONIC in DE on 31st OCT 2013, Patent INVALIDATED with DECISION AT FIRST INSTANCE on 23td JUNE 2015|
|EP0929992||Voltage sensing, Voltage limiting, power supply connected to LED||16 JUL 2018, Priority: 01 AUG 1997 EP, Filling: 17 Jul 1998||REVOCATION ACTION FILED By TCI on 23rd Feb 2015 for all relevant claims related to constant current power supply connected to LEDs, All the attached claims invalidated with decision at first instance on 22nd Feb 2017|
|EP1046196||Luminaire with at least two different LEDs and a phosphor to improve CRI. Example: luminaire with at least two different LEDs and a reflector with a phosphor to improve CRI||17 SEP 2019 Priority: 28 sep 1998 – 10 MAR 1999 EP, Filling: 17 SEP 1999||REVOCATION ACTION FILED By PANASONIC in DE on 31st OCT 2013, Patent INVALIDATED with DECISION AT FIRST INSTANCE on 15th OCTOBER 201|
|EP1415518||EMI, Y-Capacitor (Blue Capacitor)||17 JUL 2022 Priority 19 JUL 2001 EP, Filling: 18 JUL 2002||REVOCATION ACTION FILED By TCI on 13rd AUG 2015 for all claims. Sentence of full invalidation expected on 7th July 2017, accordingly to Court’s preliminary opinions|
It also appear that some other patents of yours have been ad/or are the subject of litigation in opposition before the European Patent Office or for invalidation before British Courts.
All this shows that the object of the Patent Licence Agreement you proposed and got signed is originally null and void, at least in part, because the most extended and used patents have been nullified lacking the objective requirement of priority, to the point that the whole licence system you developed is demolished.
It follows that, according to thementioned Patents Lincence Agreement, the paument of royalties may be lawfully required exclusively in relation to products that actually use only valid patents of yours, considered individually and eith its specific duration, not inside a general “package” of patents.
Furthemore, it is unacceptable the contractual provision that extends – at your only own advantage – the legal duration of patents to the last patent expiration included in the “package” (art. 7.1. “this agreement (…) shall remain in force until the expiration of the last to expire patent includend in the Patents”).
So, on behalf of our delegating firms, we give notice to you:
1) To suspend the application of the Patent Licence Agreement above mentioned;
2) In particular, not to consider extended the legal duration of patents to the last epatent expiration included in the “package”;
3) To refund to Licensees any payment connected with unduly obligation for the above reasons;
4) To suspend the pressing campaign to sign the Patent Licence Agreement, as you are implementing.
With reserve of further damages and waiting an answer within the term of _______ days, best regards