August 7, 2025
Signify Secures Partial Win in Ongoing Patent Battle
Judge affirms core LED patents; one remains unresolved heading toward trial
In a legal development concerning a 3-year old legal dispute, a Nevada federal court has handed Signify a partial win in its ongoing patent fight with Lepro Innovation Inc., a Nevada-based company that markets and sells strip lights, lamps, wall packs and high bays made in China.
The court’s August 1, 2025, summary judgment ruling sided with Signify on five of the seven patents originally at issue — a clear momentum boost for the world’s largest lighting company as it continues its long-running campaign to enforce its LED intellectual property.
| Patent & Description | Status | August 1 Ruling Impact | To Be Tried? |
|---|---|---|---|
|
7,014,336 ('336)
Systems and Methods for Generating and Modulating Illumination Conditions
|
Still active | Lepro's invalidity defense rejected; prior "indefinite" argument already rejected | Possible damages |
|
7,038,399 ('399)
Methods and Apparatus for Providing Power to Lighting Devices
|
Infringed | Lepro conceded infringement; court rejected invalidity, anticipation & obviousness defenses | Damages & willfulness |
|
7,348,604 ('604)
Light-Emitting Module
|
Still active | Not ruled on yet — neither infringement nor defenses addressed in Aug 1 ruling | Liability, invalidity & damages all TBD |
|
7,352,138 ('138)
Methods and Apparatus for Providing Power to Lighting Devices
|
Infringed | Lepro conceded infringement; court rejected invalidity, anticipation & obviousness defenses | Damages & willfulness |
|
8,063,577 ('577)
Method and a Driver Circuit for LED Operation
|
Infringed | Court granted summary judgment in favor of Signify based on expert evidence | Damages & willfulness |
|
9,709,253 ('253)
Light Emitting Diode Recessed Light Fixture
|
Withdrawn by Signify | Removed from the case before Aug 1 ruling | Not at issue |
|
RE49,320 ('320)
Lighting Device with Built-in RF Antenna
|
Still active | Court granted summary judgment rejecting Lepro's invalidity defense | Possible damages |
Of the seven patents Signify initially asserted, five were addressed in this latest ruling. Three of those — the ’399, ’138, and ’577 patents — were found to be infringed by Lepro’s products, with the court also rejecting Lepro’s arguments that the patents were invalid. In two of those cases, Lepro had already conceded infringement. The ’577 patent, covering driver circuitry, was ruled infringed after the court found Lepro’s rebuttal too flimsy to stand — lacking any expert testimony to contest Signify’s detailed technical analysis.
The court also rejected Lepro’s invalidity arguments on two additional patents — the ’336 and RE’320 — leaving those patents still alive and potentially valuable, with damages and liability to be determined later. One of the seven originally asserted patents, the ’253, was previously withdrawn by Signify and wasn’t part of the ruling.
That leaves just one patent, the ’604, unresolved. The court has not yet ruled on whether Lepro infringed it or whether Lepro’s defenses hold weight. That one remains headed for trial, along with the unresolved damages and willfulness claims tied to the other patents.
For lighting manufacturers, specifiers, and distributors keeping an eye on IP enforcement trends, this case demonstrates another example of Signify’s aggressive and unwavering patent litigation stance.
