February 12, 2026
Signify Patent Trial Ends in Measured Verdict
Jury sets $410,544 damages, confirms Lepro infringement and willfulness
It is rare for a patent dispute in the lighting industry to reach a jury. Most settle long before opening statements, when the cost curves bend and risk sharpens. So when Signify and Lepro Innovation Inc. actually tried their case over seven days in Las Vegas, it stood out.
What followed, however, was not courtroom theater. It was confirmation.
After more than three years of litigation, dozens of hearings, and hundreds of filings, a Nevada jury awarded Signify $410,544 in past damages. The jury found direct infringement on every asserted claim, rejected invalidity challenges to the ’604 patent claims, and determined that infringement was willful across all six patents.
On paper, it reads as a sweeping legal win. The jury checked every box in Signify’s favor. But the $410,544 award makes clear this was not a blockbuster financial victory.
Momentum Built Before the Jury Arrived
In August 2025, the court granted Signify partial summary judgment, resolving several key issues before trial. Lepro conceded infringement on certain patents, and the court rejected multiple invalidity defenses as a matter of law.
By the time jurors were sworn in, liability on several fronts was already locked in. The trial narrowed to remaining infringement questions, damages allocation, and willfulness. The result felt less like a dramatic reversal and more like the logical end of a long procedural arc.
Infringement findings were unanimous. Willfulness findings were unanimous. Damages were itemized by patent, totaling $410,544. That figure reflects the jury’s calculation of a reasonable royalty applied to Lepro's proven U.S. sales of the accused products. In other words, this was not a punitive or windfall award, but a percentage-based licensing measure tied to actual sales volume of a small lighting industry player.
A Modest Number With Strategic Weight
The headline figure is not large by federal IP standards. Three-plus years of litigation culminating in a mid-six-figure award invites a fair question: why push this far?
Because the $410,544 is not necessarily the final number.
Signify was represented by Alston & Bird as lead counsel, the firm it frequently turns to for complex intellectual property disputes in the United States. Taking a multi-year patent case through summary judgment, expert discovery, and a seven-day jury trial does not come cheaply.
Because the jury found willfulness, Signify may seek enhanced damages of up to three times the award, though any increase is entirely at the judge’s discretion. An award of attorney’s fees would likewise be discretionary and is not automatic.
The Signal Beyond the Arithmetic
Lepro is primarily a consumer-oriented brand selling online, not a dominant force in the North American commercial channel. But the United States represents roughly one-third of Signify’s global sales. When products enter that market using technology covered by its patents, enforcement becomes less about the individual defendant and more about precedent.
Signify’s EnabLED licensing program now includes more than 1,700 licensees, according to the company. That ecosystem depends on credibility. If patents are not enforced, compliant licensees begin to question the value of participation. If infringement goes unchallenged, the program weakens.
This case, then, was not solely about recovering past damages. It was about maintaining the integrity of a licensing structure that spans the industry.
The seven-day trial may not have delivered spectacle. The damages number may appear restrained. But for manufacturers selling into the U.S. market, the takeaway is simple: even a “small” verdict can carry outsized strategic consequences.
