March 3, 2026
Signify Presses for $4.3M Beyond Patent Damages
After winning on infringement, Signify turns to reclaim mounting legal expenses
When a Nevada jury found that Lepro Innovation infringed six Signify LED patents and awarded $410,544 in damages, the case looked financially contained. It was a clean verdict: infringement across the board, willfulness across the board, and a mid-six-figure royalty calculation against a consumer-focused lighting seller.
Now the meter is running again.
On February 25, Signify asked the court to order Lepro to pay $4,326,020 in attorney fees, arguing the case was “exceptional.” The filing outlines roughly 8,846 hours of work: 6,836.75 hours from Bond, Schoeneck & King; 1,540.7 hours from Alston & Bird; and approximately 469 hours from Nevada local counsel . A Bill of Costs was filed the same day, which will likely require Lepro to cover $231,869 in court costs as the losing party.
The verdict resolved liability. The post-trial accounting reopens the financial stakes.
Why Signify Has Leverage
The unanimous willfulness finding is in Signify’s favor. While fee awards are discretionary, courts often view willfulness as strong evidence that a case “stands out”. Judges can deny fees, but when willfulness is established, they typically must explain why.
Signify argues that Lepro’s litigation conduct reinforces that standard. The motion recounts defenses dismissed at summary judgment, positions dropped mid-trial, and what Signify characterizes as weak or unsupported theories that nonetheless required full trial preparation. The claim is not simply that Lepro lost. It is that Lepro forced a full-scale patent trial on issues that should have narrowed earlier.
Nearly 9,000 hours in a six-patent federal case with expert discovery and a seven-day jury trial is not implausible.
Why $4.3 Million Faces Headwinds
But discretion cuts both ways.
Past precedents demonstrate that willfulness does not automatically lead to a mandatory penalty. Courts routinely decline to award full fees even after decisive verdicts. Weak arguments do not always equal exceptional conduct.
Then there is proportionality. A $410,544 damages award paired with a $4.3 million fee request exceeds a 10-to-1 ratio. That is legally permissible. It is also the kind of imbalance that invites scrutiny, particularly where the defendant is not a dominant commercial lighting manufacturer but a smaller, consumer-oriented seller.
Even if the court finds the case exceptional, full recovery is rare. With multiple firms and nearly 9,000 hours billed, reductions for duplication or excess are common.
The Signal for Future Patent Disputes
The broader lesson is familiar and uncomfortable for competitors of Signify. Taking a patent case in the U.S. lighting market to verdict can cost multiples of the damages at issue.
Some fee award appears more likely than not. A full $4.3 million award does not. A negotiated resolution before the court rules is also a possibility.
The $410K verdict answered whether Lepro infringed. The fee motion now tests how costly that answer will be.
