ETI Seeks Counterclaim Against Signify
The patent battle between Signify and ETI Solid State Lighting took a major turn this week. ETI asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for permission to update its legal response. The company wants to add a patent misuse defense against Signify. If successful, ETI wants the court to declare Signify’s patents unenforceable until Signify fixes the alleged misuse.
According to court filings from May 28, 2026, ETI uncovered new evidence during the discovery phase of the case. ETI argues it could not access this information before the court’s deadline. The key details were locked away in licensing and settlement deals that only Signify possessed. Signify finally handed over those documents later in the discovery process.
The original lawsuit began when Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. accused ETI of patent infringement. ETI denies these claims and continues to fight Signify’s changing allegations.
ETI’s New Allegations
In its latest filing, ETI claims that Signify’s licensing program oversteps legal boundaries. After reviewing the newly produced contracts and looking at other Signify lawsuits, ETI noticed a troubling pattern. ETI alleges that Signify demands royalty payments on broad product groups that do not actually use or infringe on any Signify patents.
The filing highlights Signify’s recent lawsuit against Lepro Innovation. ETI says court records show Signify demanded royalties from Lepro on items completely unrelated to the case. Lepro actually offered to settle before trial. They agreed to pay the amount Signify’s own expert recommended, plus future royalties on the accused products.
However, Signify rejected the deal and kept fighting for months. Signify ultimately won a $410,544 jury verdict. Afterward, Signify demanded more than $4.3 million in legal fees and costs. That fee request is ten times larger than the actual damages award. ETI argues these facts show Signify uses the crushing financial weight of litigation to force companies into massive, portfolio-wide licensing deals.
Request to Block the Patents
ETI’s proposed counterclaim goes far beyond a simple defense. The company wants the court to rule that Signify cannot enforce its patents due to this ongoing misuse.
The filing alleges that Signify uses its massive patent portfolio to force manufacturers into broad, revenue-based contracts. ETI argues these terms are completely disconnected from the actual patents in question.
Case Status
ETI stresses that its request comes early enough in the lawsuit that it will not harm Signify’s position. Right now, written discovery is still active. Neither side has taken depositions yet, and the court has not held its claim construction hearings. ETI notes that it moved quickly after reviewing thousands of pages of documents that Signify produced in December 2025.
The court has not yet ruled on ETI’s motion. If the judge grants permission, the case will expand. It will shift from a basic patent fight into a direct challenge against Signify’s entire business model for licensing.
Go Deeper:
Signify ETI Patent Lawsuit: Judge Dismisses Inequitable Conduct Claims
Signify Ordered to Revise Infringement Claims in ETI Patent Dispute