Court Rules in Signify ETI Patent Lawsuit: Inequitable Conduct Out, Willful Infringement Stays

updated 28 MAY 2026, 9:52pm EST.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Before diving into the heavy legal maneuvering of this ruling, we have to point out a bizarre twist in the paperwork itself. While federal judges are masters of the law, they are apparently still prone to the occasional copy-paste nightmare. Scroll to the bottom of this article to see the  contradiction-level typo left in the final order that technically says the exact opposite of his actual ruling.  

EdisonReport reached out to the Judgel’s office early Thursday morning. The order was corrected a few hours later.  We have no idea if our call resulted in this correction.

A federal judge handed Signify a partial win in its ongoing patent dispute with ETI Solid State Lighting on 27 MAY 2026, dismissing two of ETI’s counterclaims while allowing a third to move forward. The ruling comes from Judge Richard W. Story in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, in Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-121-RWS.

The Signify ETI patent lawsuit has been one of the more closely watched IP battles in the LED lighting industry. Signify accused ETI of infringing nine LED-related patents. ETI fired back with counterclaims of its own — including allegations that Signify played dirty during patent prosecution.

What Signify Alleged

Signify — formerly Philips Lighting — accused ETI of importing and selling LED wrap lights, wall packs, and downlights that infringe its patents. The complaint names nine counts of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and seeks a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement.

If you’ve followed EdisonReport’s coverage of Signify’s broader enforcement campaign, none of this is surprising. Signify has been methodically working through the industry for years. Most defendants settle. ETI did not.

ETI Fought Back 

ETI’s amended counterclaims went on offense. Counterclaims 19 and 20 alleged inequitable conduct — essentially accusing Signify’s attorneys of intentionally hiding prior art from the USPTO while prosecuting U.S. Patent No. 11,408,588 (the ‘588 Patent).

Specifically, ETI alleged that two Signify attorneys — Daniel Piotrowski and Petronella Verweij — knowingly withheld patents that would have tanked the ‘588 Patent’s claims. One of those patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,390,207, was assigned to Signify in a batch deal that Piotrowski himself signed. The other, U.S. Patent No. 10,634,321, was transferred to Signify in an assignment that Verweij executed.

It sounds damning on the surface. The court didn’t see it that way.

Why the Inequitable Conduct Claims Got Thrown Out

Judge Story applied the Federal Circuit’s demanding standard from Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. — which requires proof that a specific individual deliberately withheld material prior art with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO. Knowing about a reference isn’t enough. Failing to disclose a known reference isn’t enough. You have to show someone made a deliberate decision to hide it.

ETI’s theory fell apart on the intent prong. Both patents in question were part of bulk assignments involving hundreds or thousands of patents. The ‘207 Patent was one of more than 2,000 patents transferred in the 2016 assignment. The court found it unreasonable to infer that either attorney had sufficient specific knowledge of the withheld references — let alone a scheme to deceive the examiner — based on their involvement in large administrative transfers.

In plain English: being on a batch patent assignment doesn’t mean you read every patent in the pile.

ETI tried to distinguish its case from Exergen Corp. v. SAAT — a Federal Circuit precedent that dismissed nearly identical pleadings — but the court wasn’t persuaded. Counterclaims 19 and 20 are dismissed.

ETI’s Willful Infringement Claim Survives

Counterclaim 24 is a different story. ETI alleged that Signify willfully infringed ETI’s own patent — U.S. Patent No. 10,352,510, the “Linkable Lighting Fixture” patent — and the court let that one proceed.

ETI’s argument was simple and effective. Signify’s own complaint admitted it had been investigating ETI’s products and intellectual property since at least 2015. ETI also alleged that Signify monitored ETI’s business and knew about the ‘510 Patent through ETI’s consistent patent marking on its products.

The court found that combination — ongoing monitoring plus actual notice through patent marking — sufficient to plausibly infer willful infringement. Judge Story acknowledged that many of ETI’s allegations were conclusory, but enough survived to keep Counterclaim 24 alive.

If ETI ultimately proves willful infringement, it opens the door to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 — up to three times the actual damages — and possible attorney’s fees.

What Happens Next

The order allows ETI to file an Amended Answer and Counterclaims within 14 days — no later than 11 JUN 2026 — consistent with the court’s rulings and including the dismissal of Cooper Lighting as a party. The case will then be scheduled for a Claim Construction Hearing, where the court will interpret the disputed patent claim language.

That hearing will be critical. How Judge Story construes the claims of Signify’s patents will shape the entire infringement analysis going forward.

The Bigger Picture

This ruling fits the pattern we’ve been tracking in the Signify ETI patent lawsuit and across Signify’s broader enforcement activity. Inequitable conduct is notoriously hard to plead and even harder to prove. The Federal Circuit set a high bar in Therasense and courts have held that line consistently. ETI gave it a credible shot, but the bulk-assignment facts worked against them.

What’s more interesting is Counterclaim 24. ETI isn’t just defending here — it’s claiming Signify infringed ETI’s patents. That’s a fight within a fight, and the willful infringement angle means the financial stakes just got larger in both directions.

We’ve been following ETI’s trajectory for years — from its patent portfolio buildout to its rebrand as ETI Lighting to the moment it countered Signify’s lawsuit head-on. This is a company that built a serious IP portfolio and is using it.

For context on how other defendants have fared against Signify, see our coverage of the Nanoleaf settlement and the Lepro trial. Most companies settle. ETI is fighting — and it just scored a point.

Postscript: The Judge’s Page 30 Copy-Paste Oops

If you read the final page of Judge Story’s official order in Signify North America Corporation v. ETI Solid State Lighting Inc. (Document 97), you will find a textbook example of a clerical error.

Throughout the entire 30-page document, the judge methodically explains exactly why ETI’s inequitable conduct claims are legally deficient and must be thrown out. Yet, when transitioning to the final “Conclusion” block on page 30, the text suddenly reads:

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that ETI’s allegations are sufficient to support Counterclaims 19 and 20 alleging inequitable conduct as well as the willful infringement allegations within Counterclaim 24.”

Literally one sentence later, the order snaps back to reality, stating: “Specifically, ETI’s Counterclaims 19 and 20 are dismissed. ETI’s Counterclaim 24 will proceed.”

It is a head-scratching contradiction where the judge accidentally wrote that the claims were “sufficient” right before officially terminating them. Rest assured, the actual ruling stands: Inequitable Conduct is officially out, and Willful Infringement is moving forward. But let this be a comfort to anyone who has ever accidentally left a conflicting sentence in a draft—even federal judges do it!

EdisonReport will continue to follow Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-121-RWS as it moves toward Claim Construction.