ETI Counters Signify’s Patent Lawsuit, Claiming Invalidity and Misconduct in LED Dispute
ETI Solid State Lighting Inc. has pushed back hard against patent infringement claims by Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V.. In a legal filing submitted on 23 July 2025, ETI denied infringement allegations and launched a counterattack. The company filed 18 counterclaims, arguing that the patents are either invalid or were obtained through dishonest means.
The lawsuit focuses on technologies used in LED recessed fixtures, wall packs, and adjustable lighting systems.
ETI Seeks Legal Protection Against Infringement Claims
ETI wants a federal judge to rule that it has not infringed any of the nine Signify patents. It also claims those patents should never have been issued. According to ETI, public documents and older research show that Signify’s ideas were not new.
One key reference is Project 2.3, a 2005 report from the California Energy Commission. ETI says this report already described many of the lighting concepts that Signify claims to have invented.
The company also says its own products don’t meet critical elements listed in the patent claims.
Accusations of Misconduct During Patent Filing
The most serious charge involves U.S. Patent No. 11,408,588. ETI claims Signify misled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by hiding two earlier patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,390,207 and 10,634,321. These patents, ETI argues, were highly relevant and should have been disclosed.
The filing names Signify attorney Daniel Piotrowski. ETI alleges he knew about the earlier patents but still failed to disclose them during the application process. Since both earlier patents were owned by Signify, the company could not claim ignorance.
If the court agrees, it could rule the ’588 patent unenforceable.
Cooper Lighting Pulled Into the Legal Fight
ETI has also added Cooper Lighting, LLC to the case. Cooper, based in Peachtree City, Georgia, is a Signify subsidiary. Although it wasn’t part of the original complaint, ETI says Cooper’s involvement in product development and sales justifies its inclusion.
The addition strengthens ETI’s argument that the case should remain in Georgia.
A Case With Industry-Wide Implications
Most companies usually settle with Signify. If ETI succeeds, other companies may feel more confident in challenging broad or vague patent claims. The outcome could shift how patents are written, filed, and enforced across the industry. According to their website, Signify boasts 1700+ license agreements.
The case is still in its early stages, but the stakes are high.