May 13, 2026
6½ Insights the Industry Should Know About Lighting Patents
From smart lighting to tunable white systems, more categories are now landing in litigation crosshairs
The legal landscape around LED technology is getting more complicated, more expensive, and more relevant to more kinds of companies than ever before. On May 7, a webinar hosted by Radulescu LLP walked attendees through a year's worth of patent litigation developments in the LED lighting and controls industry. What emerged was less a legal seminar and more a market intelligence briefing. Here is what lighting professionals need to know.
1. Litigation Is Up, and Not Just LED Chip Fights
The headline number from the webinar: LED-related patent lawsuits surged 60 percent last year, with more than 100 cases filed. David Radulescu, Ph.D., called it a record-setting year, and noted that 71 cases remain active as of May 2026. These are not quick nuisance suits. "It's been many years since there's been over 100 patent litigations directed to LED technology filed," Radulescu said during the presentation.
Radulescu also noted that new LED patent filings overall are up roughly 5 percent, which means the pipeline of potential future litigation is not shrinking.
More striking than the volume is the scope. These cases are no longer confined to disputes over LED chips or semiconductor components. Active litigation now covers tunable white and color-temperature switching, dimming controls, smart bulbs, RF-enabled lamps, entertainment lighting, chip-on-board modules, and energy management systems. That broadens the story considerably. Manufacturers, importers, and brands operating in architectural lighting, connected lighting, or decorative categories who assumed this fight was someone else's problem may want to reconsider.
2. Signify Is Not Retreating. It Is Recalibrating.
Signify's EnabLED licensing program, which now claims more than 1,700 licensees, has been the dominant force in LED patent enforcement for years. According to the webinar presentation, Signify filed no new EnabLED lawsuits over the past year, and settled two of its five pending cases. That might read as a company pulling back. It is not.
Radulescu described a deliberate shift in enforcement strategy. Rather than asserting the same patents repeatedly across many defendants, Signify is now deploying newer, previously unused patents matched more specifically to each target's products. "The defendants and the targets can't make use of prior litigation analysis and assertions," Radulescu explained, "and are sort of off on their own with developing defenses." The old playbook, where defendants could lean on prior case strategy and invalidity arguments that had already worked once, is less reliable now.
For companies sourcing products, developing private-label lines, or importing fixtures into the U.S. market, that shift raises the bar on due diligence.
3. The Trial That Finally Happened, and What It Actually Cost
Most patent cases in this industry never reach a jury. They settle when litigation costs and litigation risk finally outweigh the appeal of fighting. So when Signify and Lepro Innovation Inc. actually tried their case over seven days in Las Vegas, it was notable.
The jury found infringement on every patent, rejected Lepro's invalidity defenses at trial, and determined that infringement was willful. As we reported in February, the total damages award was $410,544, spread across six patents, with one patent producing just $1,677 in damages. That is a complete legal victory for Signify, and a relatively modest financial one.
The math gets more complicated in the aftermath. Signify has since asked the court to order Lepro to pay $4.3 million in attorney fees, arguing the case was exceptional. As we noted in our March coverage, courts often reduce fee requests substantially, and full recovery is far from automatic. But some fee award appears probable given the willfulness finding. For anyone watching from the sidelines, the takeaway is uncomfortable: fighting a patent case in the U.S. lighting market to a verdict can cost multiples of the damages at stake.
4. The Ten-Cent Switch Tells the Real Story
One of the sharpest observations from the webinar came when Radulescu discussed what happened to one of the Signify patents after broader product claims were knocked out through an invalidity challenge. What remained was a claim covering only a switch component, not a complete luminaire.
"We all know the difference between a claim directed to a light that's worth $10 versus a claim directed to a 10-cent switch," Radulescu said. The point was about patent valuation, specifically how dramatically royalty exposure changes depending on which portion of a product a surviving claim actually covers. A patent on a finished fixture carries a very different damages calculation than a patent on a single component inside it.
That concept matters for anyone trying to assess litigation risk on their own product lines. The question is not just whether a patent applies. It is what part of the product it applies to, and what that portion is actually worth.
5. Challenging Patents Is Getting Harder
For years, one of the most effective tools for companies defending against patent assertions was filing a challenge at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, specifically through a process called an inter partes review, or IPR. A successful challenge could invalidate a patent entirely, removing it from the equation.
Radulescu flagged that this avenue is becoming less reliable. The current USPTO leadership, under Director John Squires and Deputy Director Coke Morgan, is more sympathetic to patent holders. More IPR petitions are now being denied at the institution stage before a full PTAB trial proceeds. His message to potential defendants was clear: file earlier, make stronger arguments, and do not count on the IPR as a safety net. For smaller companies and importers who have historically relied on that process as a cost-effective alternative to full litigation, the policy shift matters.
6. Other Licensors Are Active, Too
Signify gets the most attention, but the webinar made clear it is not the only organization pursuing LED patent enforcement. Radulescu covered active programs from Lynk Labs, CAO Lighting, SemiLED Innovations, EdisonLED, and LightSure LLC. Among the notable developments: EdisonLED filed suit against Home Depot in the past year, and LightSure has seven active suits against companies including Acuity, Eaton, and Emerson Electric. The details on each program varied, but the aggregate picture was consistent: patent enforcement in the LED industry is not a single-company story.
For lighting professionals, the practical implication is that exposure does not depend solely on whether a product line overlaps with Signify's portfolio. The enforcement landscape is wider than the most visible litigant.
6½ . Where the Patents Are Coming From
This one is more context than crisis. The webinar's data on global LED patent ownership showed South Korean companies, led by Samsung and LG, continuing to dominate new filings. Chinese activity is increasing. U.S.-based patent ownership is comparatively flat. Signify and Lumileds were the Western names most frequently cited, with Signify ranking fifth overall in LED patents issued last year, at 63 grants.
For now, this is macro backdrop. But it is a reminder that the intellectual property shaping the LED industry was largely developed, filed, and held by companies headquartered outside North America, and that the enforcement campaigns flowing from that ownership are not going away.
For lighting people, the central message here was not especially subtle: the risk of LED patent litigation is broadening, the tools for fighting it are getting harder to use, and the companies most exposed may not yet realize it.
Radulescu has been tracking this corner of the industry for nine consecutive years, and his annual presentation has become one of the few places where manufacturers, importers, and brand owners can get a clear-eyed look at who is filing, who is being targeted, and what the numbers actually mean. The Signify versus Lepro trial was not a warning shot. It was a completed case with a clear outcome and a very large legal bill still pending. The next one may not announce itself in advance.
