Liton Settles: Fighting Signify’s LED Patents Remains Futile

On 31 July, we published an article, The Futility of Fighting Signify.  In the article, we stated that resisting Signify’s LED patent machine is an exercise in futility. The events of 8 September  reinforce that point: Liton has now settled with Signify. Terms were not disclosed, but the outcome fits the pattern we’ve watched for years—most defendants eventually take a license or settle before trial.

Why? Because Signify brings three advantages to every fight. First, portfolio depth: its global LED IP stack is vast and actively maintained. Even if you find daylight against one patent, there are others in reserve. Second, process and resources: Signify’s litigation playbook is refined and well funded. Discovery burdens, expert costs, and the specter of willful infringement (and treble damages) tilt the risk calculus for smaller and mid-sized manufacturers. Third, business pressure: channel partners, major retailers, and marketplaces prefer certainty. A live patent dispute threatens listings, forecasts, and customer confidence; a license turns the lights back on.

Companies often begin with principled defenses—non-infringement arguments, validity challenges, design-around strategies. But time is money, and the runway gets short fast. Summary-judgment skirmishes, claim-construction risk, and mounting legal fees make a “day in court” look less heroic and more hazardous. In parallel, business leaders have to protect revenue, preserve engineering focus, and maintain customer commitments. Settling does all three.

Liton’s resolution won’t be the last. In fact the Lepro case is brewing right now and set for trial in January.  Until a defendant not only reaches a jury but also wins on the merits (and survives appeal), the rational outcome for most is unchanged: negotiate, license, move on.

Signify’s strategy isn’t about punishing competitors; it’s about enforcing a licensing framework the industry has, by and large, accepted. For manufacturers, the question is less “Can we win?” and more “What does certainty cost versus continued risk?”

Another case closed. Another reminder that, in LED patents, pragmatism usually prevails.