After spending a few days in the courtroom last week, one conclusion became difficult to avoid: Signify has made a persuasive case against Lepro in their patent infringement trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
I attended portions of the trial in person. I sat through expert testimony, cross-examinations, and procedural arguments. After reviewing the evidence and discussing it with my longtime attorney friend Henrik Villumsen of the Villumsen Law Group, we both reached the same conclusion. Signify presented a persuasive, disciplined case.
Based on what I observed in court and what appears in the filings submitted yesterday, I personally believe Signify will prevail. At this stage, the more interesting question is how damages will be assessed.
Day 6: The Case Comes Fully Into Focus
Court minutes from Day 6 show a case that has now fully crystallized. Plaintiffs rested. Defendants rested. Signify closed with rebuttal testimony. The jury was excused. A verdict may come today.
Most importantly, the court denied Lepro’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law.
That matters.
A Rule 50 denial means the judge found sufficient evidence for the jury to decide infringement, validity, notice, willfulness, and damages. From a courtroom perspective, momentum clearly favored Signify by the end of the day.
Why Signify’s Rule 50 Filing Carries Weight
Signify’s Rule 50(a) motion lays out, in detail, why it believes no reasonable jury could rule in Lepro’s favor.
The filing addresses five core issues:
• Direct infringement of multiple asserted patents
• Failure of Lepro’s invalidity defenses
• A well-supported damages analysis
• Proper notice of infringement dating back years
• Evidence of willful infringement
In the courtroom, the imbalance was noticeable. Signify presented multiple technical experts. In several instances, Lepro offered limited rebuttal.
That absence is hard for a jury to overlook.
Expert Testimony That Resonated
Signify’s experts did what juries respond to best. They tested products. They demonstrated them live and explained complex LED technology in practical terms.
Several moments stood out:
• Admissions by Lepro’s expert that he never physically examined some accused products
• Live demonstrations showing heat dissipation through bulb housings
• Spectral testing confirming infringement of tunable-white claims
• Ineffective rebuttal testimony on certain patents
In multiple areas, Signify’s expert testimony went unrebutted. From a legal standpoint, that is damaging for a defendant.
This pattern mirrors what EdisonReport has previously covered regarding patent enforcement in lighting, including earlier analysis of Signify’s broader IP strategy.
Damages: Modest Dollars, Larger Implications
Signify’s damages expert calculated total damages of approximately $410,544 through September 2025.
That is not a massive figure by patent-litigation standards. However, the structure of the damages case matters more than the number.
The analysis relied on:
• Patent-specific valuation
• Georgia-Pacific factor analysis
• Confirmation of certain rates by Lepro’s own damages expert
Lepro attempted to rely on Signify’s EnabLED licensing program as a comparator.
If the jury accepts Signify’s damages model, the decision will reinforce that even relatively small infringement volumes can carry consequences.
Willfulness: Emails and Internal Messages Matter
Some of the most damaging evidence was not technical.
Signify presented testimony showing that Lepro received multiple infringement notices over several years. According to trial testimony, Lepro chose not to engage. Internal communications suggested the company believed the case was not worth serious attention and that products could simply be pulled later if needed.
That kind of evidence resonates with juries. In addition, it also opens the door to enhanced damages.
My Take
I have covered lighting-industry litigation for years at EdisonReport. Watching this trial unfold in person reinforced something that remains true: patents still matter, courts still matter, and ignoring infringement claims is rarely a winning strategy.
Henrik Villumsen and I independently reached the same conclusion after reviewing the evidence and filings. Signify presented a persuasive and well-supported case.
Now, attention turns to the jury.
Whatever the final verdict, this case will be closely watched across the global lighting industry. The outcome will not just determine who wins. It will signal how courts view notice, enforcement, and accountability in an increasingly crowded smart-lighting market.
Go Deeper:
