Signify Lepro Patent Case Raises a $4.3 Million Question

Signify prevailed in its patent infringement case against Lepro, but the financial outcome raises a larger question for its patent licensing strategy.

A jury found that Lepro infringed all six Signify patents at issue and awarded $410,544 in damages.  The jury also found willful infringement. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Dorsey has now upheld those findings, rejecting Lepro’s attempt to overturn the verdict.

Legally, Signify won.

Financially, the outcome is more complicated.

Signify sought more than $4.3 million in attorney fees and asked the court to triple its damages. Judge Dorsey denied both requests.

That leaves an important question for Signify and its EnabLED patent licensing program: What happens when successfully enforcing a patent costs substantially more than the amount recovered?

The $4.3 Million Attorney-Fee Request

Following the February 2026 verdict, Signify asked the court to award $4,326,019.88 in attorney fees. The request offered a rare glimpse into the enormous cost of patent litigation.

Signify argued that Lepro’s conduct made the litigation an “exceptional” case under federal patent law. Such a finding could have required Lepro to pay Signify’s attorney fees.

Judge Dorsey disagreed.

The court found that Lepro’s conduct did not meet the standard required for an exceptional case. Signify will, however, recover $190,315.81 in taxable costs. The court rejected approximately $41,000 in additional costs associated with trial graphics.

Signify is also entitled to supplemental damages. Those will include certain sales that were not disclosed during discovery.  The final amount has not yet been determined.

Even with those additions, the economics of the case appear challenging.

Why Willfulness Wasn’t Enough

One of the more significant aspects of Judge Dorsey’s ruling is her treatment of willful infringement.

The jury concluded that Lepro acted willfully. However, willfulness alone does not automatically trigger enhanced damages.

Judge Dorsey found no evidence that Lepro deliberately copied Signify’s designs. She also concluded that Lepro presented substantial defenses, particularly involving two patents that accounted for approximately 95% of Signify’s requested damages.

The court also examined Lepro’s conduct during the litigation. While Signify criticized several of Lepro’s actions, the judge did not find the type of malicious or bad-faith behavior necessary to justify enhanced damages.

That distinction matters because the jury’s willfulness finding survived while the financial consequences Signify sought did not.

EdisonReport Raised This Question Months Ago

The financial imbalance did not emerge only after the latest ruling.

In April, EdisonReport examined the post-trial battle and wrote:

“If Signify prevails with their strategy of treble damages and receives attorney fees, it sends a strong signal for the industry to continue paying royalties. If the award is capped at $410,000, it may encourage other companies to fight and take their chances in court.”

The latest ruling provides much of the answer.

In July, EdisonReport returned to the issue while examining whether companies should revisit their Signify EnabLED license agreements. We cited a presentation by attorney David Radulescu addressing the economics of defending against Signify’s patent claims.

Lepro had argued that Signify was prepared to spend more than ten times its compensatory damages claim litigating the case. Even if the damages were tripled, Lepro argued that Signify’s litigation costs could still exceed the potential recovery.

That argument looks considerably more significant today.

The €115 Million Number Changes the Equation

There is another side to this story, however, and it may explain why Signify is willing to spend millions enforcing its intellectual property.

Last month, EdisonReport published an important figure in Signify’s 2025 Annual Report.

On page 32, Signify reports that leasing intellectual property represents approximately 2% of company revenue. Applying that percentage to Signify’s reported €5.765 billion in 2025 sales, EdisonReport calculated approximately €115 million in annual intellectual-property leasing revenue.

That number requires an important qualification. Signify does not separately disclose EnabLED revenue. Therefore, €115 million is an EdisonReport estimate of Signify’s total intellectual-property leasing revenue, not a reported figure for the EnabLED program alone.

Still, the estimate puts the Lepro litigation into a different perspective.

Signify isn’t simply trying to collect damages from one manufacturer. It is protecting an intellectual-property licensing business that may generate more than €100 million annually.

From that perspective, spending several million dollars on a patent case may be entirely rational.

The harder question is whether that enforcement strategy can be repeated.

The Deterrence Question

Patent licensing depends on more than owning strong patents. It also depends on the credibility of enforcement.

A manufacturer receiving a Signify licensing demand has several choices. It can negotiate, take a license, settle the dispute, redesign its products or fight the allegations in court.

Lepro chose to fight.

That decision was hardly painless. Lepro lost the case, faces damages and undoubtedly incurred substantial legal expenses of its own.

But the case also demonstrates something that other manufacturers will notice.

Signify spent heavily to enforce its patents. It prevailed at trial and successfully defended the verdict afterward. Yet the court did not require Lepro to reimburse Signify’s multimillion-dollar attorney bill.

That changes the economic calculation surrounding patent enforcement.

If an accused manufacturer believes its potential damages are relatively small, it may look at the Lepro outcome when deciding whether to negotiate or litigate.