August 5, 2024
Judge Slashes $34.6M Damages to $3.8M in Lutron Patent Case
Judge calls award "grossly excessive" and "outlandish"; grants GeigTech permanent injunction rights
A federal judge has significantly reduced the damages awarded to GeigTech East Bay LLC — known commercially as J Geiger Shading — in its patent infringement lawsuit against Lutron Electronics Co., while also granting GeigTech's request for a permanent injunction against Lutron.
In a post-trial ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon vacated the jury's $34.6 million damages award to GeigTech, calling it "grossly excessive." She instead ordered a reduced award of $3.8 million, the maximum amount GeigTech's own expert had calculated as reasonable royalty damages.
The court's ruling on damages highlighted a significant disparity between the parties' positions and the jury's award. During the trial, GeigTech had originally requested damages of $3,843,986, which their expert calculated as a reasonable royalty. This amount was substantially lower than the jury's surprising $34.6 million award.
In response to the court's consideration of reduced award, Lutron argued that the proper revised amount should be no higher than $777,860, presenting a stark contrast to both the jury's award and GeigTech's original request. Ultimately, Judge McMahon sided with GeigTech's initial calculation, setting the reduced award at $3,843,986 — the exact amount GeigTech had originally sought.
"GeigTech never sought anything like $34.6 million in damages, and there is no basis in the evidence for such an outlandish award - even though the jury found willful infringement ... And while I can only guess why the jury did what it did, it is not illogical to infer that the jury ignored my instruction that reasonable royalty damages were not designed to 'punish the infringer,' since $34.6 million in the context of this case is a highly punitive number."
— U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon
GeigTech Given 14 Days to Accept Reduced Award or Face New Trial
GeigTech has 14 business days from the July 30 court order to accept the reduced award or face a new trial solely on damages.
The case stems from GeigTech's allegations that Lutron's Palladiom window shade brackets infringed on its patent for brackets that conceal wiring. A jury previously found Lutron had willfully infringed GeigTech's patent.
Above: Excerpt from Geigtech's original complaint
While reducing damages, Judge McMahon upheld the jury's findings on infringement, willfulness and validity of GeigTech's patent. She denied Lutron's motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on those issues.
The judge also granted GeigTech's request for a permanent injunction prohibiting Lutron from making or selling the infringing brackets. She found GeigTech had demonstrated irreparable harm and that monetary damages alone were inadequate.
"GeigTech and Lutron are direct competitors in a marketplace that GeigTech created," McMahon wrote. "This record evidence underscores the profitability of infringement and suggests that mere damages will not compensate for a competitor's increasing share of the market."
Injunction Granted, But Lutron Allowed to Modify Existing Stock
The injunction allows Lutron to continue importing existing stock of the infringing brackets, but only to modify them to incorporate a new non-infringing design. Lutron claims it stopped shipping the old infringing design in March 2024.
Both companies' requests for attorney's fees were denied, with the judge finding this was not an "exceptional case" warranting such an award under patent law.
In December 2023, Savant Systems, a long-time partner of Geigtech, acquired the assets of J Geiger Shading. Savant structured the acquisition to remain external to the legal disputes between J Geiger and Lutron.
The ruling marks a significant development and possible finality in the long-running legal battles between the two shade manufacturers. GeigTech first sued Lutron in 2018, accusing the company of copying its patented bracket designs after engaging in what it called "industrial espionage."
