Lighting Giant Seeks $4.3M in Patent Suit
Signify, formerly Philips Lighting, is pressing for an extra $4.3 million in a patent infringement case, highlighting a key risk for contractors. The lawsuit underscores the danger of using non-compliant or gray-market materials in projects. For a small business, sourcing electrical components from reputable vendors is critical to avoiding legal and financial exposure.
The initial lawsuit concluded with a Nevada jury ordering Lepro Innovation Inc. to pay Signify $410,544 in damages. The jury found that Lepro's infringement on six of Signify's LED patents was willful, a key factor in subsequent legal maneuvers. The additional $4.3 million sought by Signify is not for patent damages but to cover $4,326,020 in attorney's fees. This figure accounts for approximately 8,846 hours of work performed by three separate law firms representing Signify during the dispute. Signify's request for legal fees hinges on its argument that the case was "exceptional." This claim is supported by the jury's unanimous finding of willfulness and Signify's assertion that Lepro unnecessarily prolonged the litigation process. Evidence of willful infringement presented during the trial included testimony that Lepro had received multiple infringement notices over several years but chose not to engage with them. Internal communications from Lepro reportedly indicated the company did not consider the lawsuit a serious threat. This legal action is part of a broader, long-standing strategy by Signify to aggressively enforce its intellectual property. The company holds an extensive portfolio of LED technology patents and frequently turns infringement lawsuits into licensing agreements with competitors. For electrical contractors, installing non-compliant products from any source carries significant liability. Beyond patent disputes, using such materials can lead to failed inspections, civil liability for fires or electrical shocks, and the refusal of insurance claims.
