Legal Tensions Escalate as Signify and ETI Trade Blows over Patent Lawsuit
The legal dispute between Signify and ETI Lighting intensified on 25 June as both parties submitted new filings. The case, filed on 2 May in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 2:25-cv-00121-RWS), centers on intellectual property and now includes sharp disagreement over a second extension request from ETI, as reported yesterday.
Signify ETI Patent Lawsuit; Signify Pushes to Move Forward
Signify is urging the court to deny ETI’s latest request for more time. According to their filing, ETI has already had 51 days to respond—far more than the standard 21 days provided under federal rules.
Signify argues that ETI has long known it needs a license for Signify’s patent portfolio. The company claims over a decade of failed negotiations led to the lawsuit. While both parties met on 17 June to discuss a settlement, Signify says no proposals were exchanged and that ETI has not signed the confidentiality agreement required to continue talks.
During the meeting, Signify representative Dan Gaudet made it clear they would not support another delay.
ETI Counters: “The Rules Have Changed”
ETI’s reply tells a different story. The company states that the complaint filed in April introduced 10 new patent claims that had not been disclosed in prior talks. These new claims, ETI argues, drastically expand the case and justify more time to prepare.
ETI also notes that Signify had been silent since 2023 before suddenly filing the lawsuit. In its view, the dropped legacy claims support ETI’s long-standing position that it does not infringe on Signify’s patents.
Settlement Efforts Cloud the Timeline
ETI attended the 17 June settlement meeting in Atlanta at Signify’s request. The timing was tight—the meeting occurred just days before ETI’s 23 June deadline to respond to the complaint. ETI insists it is not stalling the case. Instead, it states that the extension is necessary to either finalize a settlement or file a proper legal response.
Signify, however, sees things differently. They say this isn’t the first round of settlement talks and argue that delays only serve to stall accountability.
What Comes Next?
The court has not yet ruled on the extension request. If granted, ETI will have until 23 July to respond. If denied, the company must act under the original timeline.
One thing is clear: the filings show deep frustration on both sides. Whether this case heads to trial or settles out of court, the road ahead looks contentious.
EdisonReport will continue to follow developments in this case.
Go Deeper: ETI Requests Second Extension in Signify Lawsuit; Signify says No