Signify v. Current Lighting Solutions: Three LED Patents, Dismissed Without Prejudice in 216 Days
Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. filed suit in Delaware against Current Lighting Solutions, LLC asserting infringement of three patents covering LED driver circuits and downlight technology. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims without prejudice after just 216 days, each bearing its own legal costs.
Swift stipulated exit in a three-patent LED driver IP dispute
On 14 July 2023, Signify North America Corporation and its parent Signify Holding B.V. filed a patent infringement action against Current Lighting Solutions, LLC in the Delaware District Court before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint asserted three US patents — US9119268B2, US8070328B1, and US8063577B2 — covering LED driver isolation and surge signal protection, LED downlight design, and driver circuit methods for LED operation. The accused products sit squarely in the commercial LED lighting and controls market.
The case closed on 15 February 2024 by way of a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all claims and counterclaims between the parties without prejudice. Critically, each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, meaning no financial penalty was imposed on either side as part of the exit. A dismissal without prejudice preserves Signify’s right to refile the same patent claims against Current Lighting Solutions in a future proceeding.
Resolution in 216 days — well under the median time-to-trial for multi-patent district court cases — suggests the parties likely reached an off-docket understanding, though no settlement terms have been made public. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation. Whether the parties entered a licensing agreement, a covenant not to sue, or simply agreed to stand down remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 216 days
216 days — faster than most multi-patent LED infringement cases reaching full resolution
What the without-prejudice stipulated dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a joint exit requiring no court approval
A stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a self-executing mechanism — both parties sign and file, and the case closes without the court needing to rule on the merits. It is among the most common vehicles for resolving patent disputes that settle before trial. The court makes no finding of infringement, validity, or damages, leaving the patent record entirely intact.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice: Signify retains the right to refile
A dismissal without prejudice means Signify’s claims are not extinguished. Signify North America and Signify Holding B.V. could, in principle, reassert any or all three patents against Current Lighting Solutions in a future action — subject to any private agreement between the parties that may constrain that right. This is materially different from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record is silent on whether any such private constraints exist.
Claims preservedEach party bears its own costs — no winner declared
The stipulation explicitly provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In patent litigation, a fee-shifting provision under 35 U.S.C. § 285 can dramatically affect the economics of a case. The absence of any cost award here is consistent with a mutually agreed resolution rather than a concession by either side, and signals neither party viewed itself as having clearly prevailed.
Symmetric cost allocationEarly exit pattern is consistent with off-docket resolution
Closure at 216 days — before claim construction and without any substantive court rulings on the patents — typically signals that a commercial resolution was reached privately. This could take the form of a licensing arrangement, a cross-licence, a covenant not to sue, or a business-level agreement. None of these would appear in the public court record, making the true resolution opaque to third-party observers in the LED lighting IP space.
Likely private resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Signify North America Corporation | Company | Global LED lighting IP licensor — holder of US9119268B2, US8070328B1, and US8063577B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Current Lighting Solutions, LLC | Company | Current Lighting Solutions, LLC — commercial LED lighting products manufacturer and supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack B. Blumenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Signify North America CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Flynn | Attorney | Counsel for Signify North America CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rodger Dallery Smith , II | Attorney | Counsel for Signify North America CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aleksander J. Goranin | Attorney | Counsel for Current Lighting Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brianna M. Vinci | Attorney | Counsel for Current Lighting Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Monte Terrell Squire | Attorney | Counsel for Current Lighting Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Seth S. Coburn | Attorney | Counsel for Current Lighting Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy R. Shannon | Attorney | Counsel for Current Lighting Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Chief Judge | Delaware District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a bilateral procedural mechanism that requires no judicial approval and produces no finding on the merits. The explicit without-prejudice designation is legally significant: it preserves Signify’s ability to re-assert all three patents. The symmetric cost allocation — each party bearing its own fees — indicates neither side extracted a concession sufficient to justify a cost-shifting argument, suggesting a commercially negotiated exit rather than a defendant capitulation or plaintiff withdrawal.
US9119268B2, US8070328B1 & US8063577B2 — LED Driver and Downlight Technology
The three asserted patents span core LED lighting subsystems. US9119268B2 (application no. US13/934761) covers driver circuitry with electrical isolation and surge protection — a critical requirement for mains-connected LED luminaires. US8070328B1 (application no. US12/352750) covers the physical and optical design of an LED downlight, a high-volume commercial form factor. US8063577B2 (application no. US11/719888) covers the method and circuitry for operating LED drivers, addressing the fundamental challenge of efficient power conversion for solid-state lighting.
Collectively, these patents represent infrastructure-level IP in the LED lighting supply chain. Isolation and surge protection technology is required in virtually every mains-connected LED driver sold into commercial and residential markets. Downlight geometry and driver method patents layer on top to create a thicket that any competing product developer — whether making luminaires, retrofit lamps, or embedded modules — may need to navigate. Signify’s decision to assert all three in a single action suggests a coordinated portfolio enforcement approach rather than a narrow product-specific claim.
Should your LED driver or downlight product be cleared against these three Signify patents?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing LED driver circuits with isolation, surge protection features, or downlight luminaires into the US market should treat US9119268B2, US8070328B1, and US8063577B2 as priority FTO targets. The fact that Signify litigated these patents in Delaware and retained the right to refile after dismissal means the risk has not been resolved in the public domain. OEM manufacturers, private-label brands, and component integrators are all potentially within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your product claims against these three patent families, identify overlapping claim elements, and monitor for continuation filings or related applications that may extend Signify’s coverage. Claim monitoring on the US9119268, US8070328, and US8063577 families will alert your team to any prosecution activity or new assertions that could affect your freedom to operate in the LED driver and downlight space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9119268B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED lighting patent infringement cases in US District Courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the LED lighting IP landscape
Signify’s willingness to assert and then withdraw three foundational LED driver patents without prejudice carries distinct signals for competitors and component makers.
Signify is actively enforcing its LED driver patent portfolio
This action confirms that Signify (formerly Philips Lighting) is prepared to litigate foundational LED driver and downlight patents in US courts. Companies commercialising LED driver circuits, isolation technology, or downlight form factors should treat the three asserted patents as live enforcement risks, not dormant IP assets.
Without-prejudice dismissal means the threat has not been neutralised
Unlike a with-prejudice dismissal or an IPR invalidation, this outcome leaves all three patents fully enforceable. Current Lighting Solutions — and any similarly positioned competitor — cannot rely on this case as evidence that Signify has abandoned its claims. The portfolio remains an active IP risk for the sector.
Signify v Current — key questions answered
Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. filed a patent infringement suit against Current Lighting Solutions, LLC in Delaware District Court on 14 July 2023, asserting three LED patents. The case was dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 15 February 2024, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Signify asserted three US patents: US9119268B2 (driver with isolation and surge signal protection), US8070328B1 (LED downlight), and US8063577B2 (method and driver circuit for LED operation). These patents cover core LED driver circuitry and downlight luminaire technology relevant to commercial lighting products.
A dismissal without prejudice means Signify’s patent infringement claims against Current Lighting Solutions were not decided on the merits and are not extinguished. Signify retains the legal right to refile the same claims in a future action. This is distinct from a with-prejudice dismissal, which would permanently bar Signify from reasserting those claims against the same defendant.
The public court record shows only a stipulated dismissal without prejudice, with no settlement agreement filed. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and early resolution — before any substantive court rulings — are consistent with a private commercial agreement, but no licensing terms, covenants, or financial terms have been publicly disclosed. The true basis for the parties’ agreement is not visible from the docket.
Delaware District Court is a frequently chosen venue for patent infringement actions because of its experienced judiciary, well-developed local patent rules, and its historic acceptance of cases where one party is incorporated in Delaware. Signify’s choice of Delaware for this LED driver patent case is consistent with broader plaintiff strategy in the lighting IP sector, where a predictable procedural environment and experienced patent judges are valued.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.