Signify Asks for Attorney fees in Lepro Case

Signify has filed a motion seeking more than $4.3 million in attorney fees following its recent courtroom victory over Lepro, marking the latest development in one of the lighting industry’s most closely watched patent disputes. Your humble editor attended portions of this trial earlier this month and found the Signify evidence to be extremely compelling.

A jury found that Lepro willfully infringed multiple Signify patents and awarded $410,544 in damages. The willfulness finding matters. Under U.S. patent law, it opens the door for enhanced damages and strengthens arguments for attorney fee recovery.

Signify’s motion leans heavily on that outcome, noting that courts often view willful infringement as a key factor when determining whether a case is “exceptional.”

Signify’s Core Argument: “Callous Disregard”

At the heart of the filing is a sharp accusation: that Lepro showed “callous disregard” for Signify’s patents and the litigation process. According to the motion, internal communications revealed that Lepro’s leadership viewed the dispute as financially insignificant and was willing to stop selling infringing products rather than engage in licensing.

Signify argues this attitude reflects not just infringement, but indifference—and adds that Lepro ignored patent notices for years without conducting a meaningful analysis before litigation.

Late-Stage Legal Tactics Under Scrutiny

A major theme in the motion is timing—specifically, when Lepro chose to act. Signify alleges that Lepro maintained defenses throughout most of the case, only to abandon several of them at the last minute, including:

• Dropping invalidity defenses mid-trial

• Failing to present evidence on certain non-infringement claims

• Conceding damages positions late in the proceedings

According to Signify, these moves forced unnecessary trial preparation and increased litigation costs. The motion also points to late legal maneuvers, including an eleventh-hour patent exhaustion argument and a delayed Daubert challenge to Signify’s damages expert.

Signify further contends that many of Lepro’s defenses lacked substantive support from the outset. In several instances, the company allegedly failed to produce evidence backing its claims or relied on arguments already rejected by the court. One example: Lepro’s technical arguments about heat sinks in LED lamps, which Signify says were contradicted by Lepro’s own expert testimony during trial.

$4.3 Million Fee Request

Signify is seeking $4,326,019.88 in attorney fees, reflecting thousands of hours spent across multiple law firms and phases of the case.  If granted, the award would significantly exceed the jury’s damages figure, underscoring how litigation behavior can drive financial exposure beyond the underlying infringement.

This motion is the latest chapter in Signify’s broader enforcement efforts, including its well-known EnabLED licensing program. The court will now decide whether the case meets the “exceptional” standard and, if so, whether the requested fees are reasonable.