Signify ETI Litigation: Court Approves Special Master

The Signify, ETI litigation will move forward with a special master overseeing pretrial proceedings. In an order filed 29 October 2026, U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story approved the parties’ selection of William B. Dyer III of Lee & Hayes, PC, in Atlanta.

Both sides consented to the appointment. However, it remains subject to the required conflict disclosure and other requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53.

The order gives William broad responsibility for discovery and pending motions. Meanwhile, Judge Story retains final authority over decisions that resolve claims and responsibility for the trial.

What the Special Master Will Handle

William will supervise discovery, help the parties resolve disagreements, and issue orders on discovery-related matters. He may also impose sanctions, other than contempt sanctions, for failure to comply.

His assignment includes ETI’s pending request to file a second amended answer and counterclaims. EdisonReport previously covered ETI’s proposed patent misuse defense and Signify’s opposition to that request.

In addition, William will address objections or motions concerning the court’s 26 October claim construction order. Claim construction establishes the meaning of disputed patent terms and helps define the infringement analysis.

That stage follows the Markman hearing EdisonReport attended in Gainesville, where arguments focused on terms involving heat sinks, housings, and other lighting components.

Recommendations on Summary Judgment

William will also prepare reports and recommendations on motions for summary judgment. These motions ask the court to decide claims or issues without a trial.

However, his recommendations will not replace the judge’s final decision.

“Final decision-making for any dispositive matter and trial responsibility shall remain exclusively vested in this Court,” the order states.

The parties can also challenge the special master’s findings and conclusions. Judge Story must review objections to legal conclusions anew. Objections to factual findings generally receive the same review unless the parties agree, with court approval, to another permitted standard.

Parties Expected to Share Costs

The court expects Signify and ETI to split William’s fees and expenses equally. It leaves the compensation details to the special master and counsel.

William must submit an affidavit addressing potential conflicts within seven days of the order. He must also file status reports and orders with the court, creating a record of his work.

The development changes how the case will proceed before trial. It does not decide infringement, patent validity, damages, or the merits of ETI’s counterclaims.