ETI Requests Second Extension in Signify Lawsuit as Settlement Talks Progress
ETI Lighting is asking the court for more time to respond to a lawsuit filed by Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. The case, filed on 2 May 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 2:25-cv-00121-RWS), involves ongoing intellectual property issues.
ETI was initially given a 30-day extension to respond to the complaint, pushing the deadline to 23 June. On that same day, ETI filed a motion requesting a second extension, this time through 23 July.
Settlement Discussions Underway
The extension request comes after a face-to-face meeting between the parties on 17 June in Atlanta. ETI’s CEO, Peter Lena, and attorney David Cupar met with Signify’s Dan Gaudet and Mher Hartoonian at the office of Alston & Bird, Signify’s counsel. According to Cupar’s court declaration, the meeting resulted in a mutual agreement to begin a structured settlement process.
Both sides agreed to execute a confidentiality agreement and exchange financial information. The goal, according to ETI’s motion, was to explore a settlement and avoid the expense of litigation.
Signify Pushes Back
Despite the productive meeting, Signify declined to support ETI’s request for more time. In a 20 June email, Hartoonian emphasized that Signify wants to move the case forward. He noted the company’s commitment to settlement talks but stressed that it would not agree to another delay.
“Our opposition to an additional extension … is not contrary to that goal—we can always request an extension of deadlines when the parties appear to be converging on a settlement,” Hartoonian wrote.
ETI Responds to Reversal
ETI expressed frustration with the sudden change. Cupar stated that Signify did not object to a possible extension during the in-person meeting. He called the reversal a waste of ETI’s good-faith efforts, especially after time and money were spent to attend the meeting.
“Signify’s current refusal to consent to an extension—while at the same time stating that it “strongly desires” to continue settlement discussions—is contradictory. If Signify truly wishes to pursue settlement, the parties should not be forced to litigate on parallel tracks and incur unnecessary costs,” Cupar wrote in a follow-up message. ETI also indicated it may seek to recover fees and costs due to what it views as mixed signals from Signify.
A History of Unresolved Issues
This lawsuit follows over 12 years of failed engagement between the companies. According to Signify, prior attempts to resolve the matter privately were unsuccessful and costly. That history ultimately led to formal legal action.
What’s Next
The court has not yet ruled on ETI’s request for an extension. If denied, ETI will have to respond to the complaint without delay. If granted, the parties will have another 30 days to reach a resolution outside of court.
Developing…
Go Deeper: Signify Lawsuit Targets ETI
Read the correspondence from the ETI Attorney below:
