Signify Fires Back at ETI Patent Misuse Claims, Cites 1,700+ EnabLED Licenses

PEACHTREE CITY, Ga. — Signify has filed a forceful response to ETI Solid State Lighting’s effort to add patent misuse claims to their ongoing patent litigation.

In a June 11 filing, Signify asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to reject ETI’s motion to amend its counterclaims. The company argues that ETI waited too long to raise the issue and that its proposed patent misuse claims have no legal basis.

The filing also reveals a new figure for Signify’s EnabLED licensing program. According to the company, it has now executed more than 1,700 license agreements. Signify cites that number as evidence that the program promotes competition rather than restricts it.

Signify Says ETI Knew About the Program for Years

A central theme of Signify’s response is timing. According to the filing, ETI has known about Signify’s licensing program for years; Signify states that it began contacting ETI regarding licensing discussions in 2015 and explicitly directed the company to EnabLED program information in 2021. Signify argues that these long-standing interactions undermine ETI’s claim that it only recently discovered evidence supporting a patent misuse defense.

Furthermore, Signify notes that while ETI received copies of the relevant license agreements back in December 2025, it still waited more than five months—until late May 2026—before seeking to amend its pleadings. Signify argues that this extensive delay alone justifies a denial of ETI’s request.

EnabLED Program Remains the Focus

The dispute centers on Signify’s EnabLED licensing program.

Signify launched the program in 2008. It allows manufacturers to obtain licenses covering Signify’s LED patent portfolio through a standardized framework. According to Signify, the program gives companies access to core LED technologies used throughout the industry.

ETI’s proposed patent misuse claims challenge several aspects of that structure, including portfolio licensing, royalty calculations, and the Qualified Supplier program.

Signify responds that courts have already rejected similar arguments.

The filing points to prior litigation involving Reggiani Lighting and proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission. According to Signify, both matters involved comparable allegations regarding its licensing practices.

Signify Defends Portfolio Licensing

Signify also defends the business practices underlying the EnabLED program.

ETI argues that portions of the licensing structure are overly broad. Signify counters that portfolio licensing is common throughout the patent industry. The company cites federal court decisions supporting royalty structures based on worldwide revenue when both parties agree to use that approach for convenience.

The company also rejects ETI’s characterization of the Qualified Supplier program as an unlawful tying arrangement.

According to Signify, the program gives licensees royalty exemptions when they purchase certain qualified components. However, it does not require those purchases. Signify argues that distinction is critical.

What Happens Next

The court must now decide whether ETI can add patent misuse allegations to the case.

If the court denies the motion, the litigation will proceed without the new defense. If the court grants the request, the dispute could expand into a broader examination of Signify’s licensing practices.

For now, Signify has made its position clear. The company intends to defend both its patents and the EnabLED licensing program, which has now surpassed 1,700 licenses worldwide.

Go Deeper:  ETI Accuses Signify of Patent Misuse as Legal Battle Grows