The Importance of Settling with Signify in Their IP Licensing Program
EdisonReport has written too many articles on IP this year, and almost all of them involve Signify, which has built a robust portfolio of patents that form the backbone of its EnabLED Licensing Program. For companies operating in the LED market, settling with Signify and participating in their licensing program is not only a strategic move but a necessary one to avoid costly legal battles.
Our attorney friend in Denmark, Henrik Villumsen, constantly reminds me that almost every company settles with Signify in the end.
A Case in Point: Atomi, Inc. and Signify
The recent case of Signify Holding B.V. v. Atomi, Inc. highlights the importance of resolving disputes with Signify’s licensing team. Atomi, Inc., represented by attorney Samuel J. Bazian of Herrick, Feinstein LLP. On 26 NOV, They sought an extension to respond to Signify’s complaint, citing ongoing settlement discussions. In a letter to the court, Bazian explained that both parties are actively negotiating a resolution, emphasizing the preference for settling over protracted litigation. This confirms again that almost everyone ends up signing up with Signify.
This example underscores the reality that most companies find it more practical to settle with Signify. By doing so, businesses can avoid the financial costs of legal disputes while ensuring compliance with IP regulations.
Signify offers two options in its EnabLED program: the standard approach and the flat rate approach. Today, almost all licensing is with the flat rate approach.