August 29, 2025
Lutron’s Patent Penalty Grows to $5.96M in Final Order
Court closes window shade bracket dispute with interest, costs, and enhanced damages
The final judgment has arrived. In recent filings, a federal court formally closed the long-running patent dispute between GeigTech and Lutron Electronics. What began as a bracket fight ends with a final damages award of $5.344 million for willful infringement — plus a slate of financial consequences that push the total closer to $5.96 million and counting.
GeigTech’s products are sold under the J Geiger Shading brand — now part of Savant Systems, which also owns GE Lighting’s residential lighting portfolio. With no appeals pending and interest now accruing, the case appears closed for good.
The August ruling includes:
- $453,832 in prejudgment interest, awarded at the Treasury Bill rate and compounded annually
- $159,921 in court costs
- Ongoing post-judgment interest on the full amount (damages, interest, and costs) at 3.90% annually from August 14 forward, which will grow until the payment is made.
This is the definitive legal end to a case that once saw damages swing from $34 million to retrial to recalibration — and back up again.
Lutron's Final Stand Falls Flat
Lutron had argued that the final $2.67 million jury award (before enhancement) was improperly inflated by reliance on the “entire market value rule,” or EMVR — a legal doctrine that allows damages based on the value of an entire product when the patented feature drives demand. The worldwide leader claimed the jury had erred, possibly “working the math backwards” from overall product profits.
The court wasn’t persuaded. Instead, it found the jury had ample reason to conclude that the aesthetics of GeigTech’s patented bracket — clean, minimalist, hardware-free — were the key differentiator in the competitive market for exposed roller shades. Testimony from GeigTech’s founder and Lutron’s own business development manager helped make that point: in the high-end shading market, appearance sells.
Above: Exhibit from GeigTech legal complaint
“Geiger-esque” and the Cost of Intent
The court’s reasoning behind the enhanced damages reads like a cautionary tale in product development. Internal Lutron emails and engineering notebooks revealed a project dubbed Snowy Owl, aimed at replicating the look of GeigTech’s brackets. An engineer described the goal of the project as developing “Geiger-esque” shades. Lutron employees admitted they visited GeigTech’s Manhattan showroom under false pretenses and obtained brackets through third parties — conduct the court found to be deliberate copying, even if it occurred before the patent was formally granted.
Lutron’s argument that this pre-patent behavior didn’t count against them didn’t hold. Nor did their broader defenses, which the court deemed reasonable — but ultimately unsuccessful. Of the nine cited factors courts use to determine whether damages should be enhanced, five tipped against Lutron.
Design’s Legal Moment
What began as a niche hardware dispute has now carved a place in window shading legal precedent. The court’s refusal to dismiss bracket aesthetics as a “secondary” feature highlights a key takeaway: in an era where exposed design matters, how something looks can be as legally defensible as how it works.
In addition to the permanent injunction already in effect, Lutron now faces the cost of an infringement ruling that, while smaller than it could have been, still lands with real financial and reputational weight.
And this time, there are no appeals pending. No motions left. Just interest accruing, and the bracket that launched a thousand filings.
