IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Nev.: Court denies Signify’s request for attorney fees in LED lighting patent case, (Aug 10, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

The court affirmed a jury award of approximately $410,000 in damages but denied a request for more than $4 million in attorney fees.

In an infringement case involving patents for LED technology owned by Signify, the federal district court in Nevada has affirmed a jury award of $410,544.00 but denied post-trial requests for enhanced damages, an ongoing royalty, and more than $4 million in attorney fees. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supports the jury verdict of infringement in favor of Signify against Lepro Innovation. But the court denied Signify’s request for more than $4 million in attorney fees in the close case which did not make the case exceptional without litigation misconduct. The court awarded Signify approximately $190,000 for litigation costs but denied the request more than $41,000 in litigation graphics (Signify North America Corp. v. Lepro Innovation Inc., No. 2:22-cv-02095-JAD-EJY (D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2026)).

Signify North America Corporation (“Signify”) owns a number of patents related to lightemitting diode (LED) technologies. Signify filed a patent infringement case against Lepro Innovation Inc., LE Innovation Inc., Innovation Rules Inc., Home Ever Inc., and Letianlighting Inc. (collectively, “Lepro”). The case went to trial on Signify’s claims that Lepro infringed six of Signify’s patents covering LED technology. The jury sided with Signify on all counts and awarded it $410,544 for infringement damages that Signify incurred through September 2025. Following the jury verdict, both parties filed post-trial motions. Lepro moved for judgment as a matter of law. Signify moved for enhanced damages, treble damages, ongoing royalties, prejudgment interest, forensic accounting, attorney fees, and litigation costs.

Infringement. The court first concluded that substantial evidence supports the jury’s infringement findings based on the testimony and evidence. In addition, the court found that substantial evidence supports the jury’s willfulness finding against Lepro. There was just enough evidence from which a jury could conclude that Lepro deliberately infringed Signify’s patents. The jury heard evidence establishing that Signify sent several letters to Lepro informing it of the alleged infringement, but Lepro ignored that correspondence. Signify is entitled to damages omitted from the jury award, but a forensic accounting is not warranted.

Enhanced damages. Weighing the relevant factors, the court concluded that Signify is not entitled to enhanced damages, treble damages, ongoing royalties, or prejudgment interest. Though Lepro’s president had occasionally demeaning things to say about Signify and the litigation, as a whole, the court found that Lepro’s defenses were substantial, its trial conduct was within reasonable limits, and its decision to continue selling allegedly infringing products during the lawsuit does not demonstrate bad faith or malicious misconduct. The court found that the claim-construction arguments and non-infringement arguments for two patents were reasonable ones, and that this was a close case.

Attorney fees. The court also denied Signify’s request for approximately $4.3 million in attorney fees. For many of the same reasons that the court denied the request for enhanced damages, the court found that the case is not exceptional warranting attorney fees. This case lacks the exceptional circumstances required to give Signify attorneys’ fees that are 900% more than the jury’s damages award. The court considered the totality of circumstances, including Lepro’s disinterest in joining the EnabLED program, which gives licensees access to Signify’s entire patent portfolio of patents, Signify’s rejection of seemingly reasonable settlement offers, Lepro’s continued sales of allegedly infringing products throughout litigation, and the relative strength of Lepro’s defenses. Overall, the court found that Lepro’s positions were not malicious, unreasonable, or advanced in bad faith. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments of litigation misconduct and sandbagging defenses. Concluding that the case is not exceptional. the court denied the request for attorney fees.

Costs. While denying the request for attorney fees, the court granted Signify $190,316 in litigation costs permitted by the local rules and the Ninth Circuit. The court awarded costs for deposition transcripts, videography costs for depositions, printing costs for exhibit binders at trial, and interpreter services. But the court denied $41,373.35 for trial graphics sought by Signify.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the jury verdict and damages award of $410,544.00, and awarded Signify $190,316 in litigation costs, but denied the request for attorney fees, enhanced damages, and an ongoing royalty.

The Case is No. 2:22-cv-02095-JAD-EJY.

Judge: Dorsey, J.

Attorneys: Adam D. Swain (Alston and Bird LLP) for Signify North America Corp. Callie J. Sand (Greenberg Traurig, P.A) for Lepro Innovation Inc.

Companies: Signify North America Corp.; Lepro Innovation Inc.

Cases: Patent NevadaNews GCNNews