Signify v. Current Lighting Solutions: Six-Patent LED Dispute Dismissed Without Prejudice
Signify North America Corporation and Signify Holding B.V. filed a six-patent infringement action against Current Lighting Solutions, LLC in Delaware, targeting LED luminaire, driver, and power factor correction technologies. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims without prejudice after just 216 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Six-patent LED lighting dispute settled quietly in Delaware
On 14 July 2023, Signify North America Corporation and its Dutch parent Signify Holding B.V. filed a patent infringement action against Current Lighting Solutions, LLC in the District of Delaware, case no. 1:23-cv-00767. The complaint asserted six United States patents spanning core LED technology domains: directly viewable luminaires, asymmetric LED collimator elements, LED drivers, lighting devices, LED driver start-up methods at reduced input voltage, and power factor correction control. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika.
The case closed on 15 February 2024 via a stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims and counterclaims between the parties were dismissed without prejudice. Critically, no cost or fee award was entered — each party agreed to bear its own litigation expenses. The without-prejudice designation means Signify is legally free to reassert any or all of the six patents against Current Lighting Solutions in a future action, and the dismissal carries no preclusive effect on the merits.
At 216 days, resolution came before the case matured to claim construction or summary judgment, suggesting the parties likely reached an understanding outside the public record — whether through licensing, design-around, or commercial negotiation. The stipulated nature of the dismissal, with mutual agreement to bear own costs, is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a unilateral concession. The public record does not disclose whether any licence, royalty, or settlement payment was exchanged, making the underlying commercial terms unknown.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 216 days
216 days — resolved well within the typical district court patent litigation cycle
Stipulated dismissal without prejudice — what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulated dismissal
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared and filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, both Signify entities and Current Lighting Solutions jointly signed the stipulation. This mechanism is often used when parties have resolved their differences privately but do not wish to disclose settlement terms in the public record.
Mutual consent requiredWithout prejudice: Signify keeps its enforcement options open
A without-prejudice dismissal means the case is closed on procedural grounds only — it carries no res judicata or issue preclusion effect. Signify retains the right to bring fresh infringement claims on any or all six patents against Current Lighting Solutions. This stands in contrast to a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record does not clarify whether a licence or standstill was agreed, but the without-prejudice form preserves Signify’s full enforcement posture.
Refiling rights preservedEach party bears its own costs — no winner declared
The stipulation explicitly provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Under the American Rule, this is the default outcome absent a fee-shifting order under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or a finding of exceptional case status. No such finding was made here. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is commercially neutral and consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than either party conceding defeat.
American Rule appliedAll counterclaims dismissed — including any invalidity defences
The stipulation covers not just Signify’s infringement claims but also all counterclaims asserted by Current Lighting Solutions. In patent cases, defendants routinely counterclaim for invalidity or non-infringement declarations. The dismissal of counterclaims without prejudice means any invalidity challenges Current Lighting raised are also closed without a merits ruling, preserving the six patents’ validity record intact. This outcome is favourable to Signify’s ongoing enforcement and licensing position.
Validity record intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Signify North America Corporation | Company | Global LED lighting IP licensor — holder of US9249965B2 and five further LED patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Current Lighting Solutions, LLC | Company | Current Lighting Solutions, LLC — LED lighting products and solutions providerSearch 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, entered under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), reflects mutual agreement to exit the litigation without any judicial determination on the merits. The explicit without-prejudice language and symmetric cost allocation suggest neither party extracted a public concession from the other. For Signify, all six patents emerge with their enforceability and validity records untouched. For Current Lighting Solutions, no infringement finding was made, but no invalidity ruling was secured either — leaving its product lines potentially exposed to future action.
Six Signify LED Patents — Luminaires, Drivers, Collimators & Power Control
The six patents asserted in this case collectively cover the core engineering stack of modern LED lighting systems. US9249965B2 targets directly viewable luminaire architectures. US7262559B2 protects asymmetric collimator optics for precise light distribution. US7654703B2 and US7670038B2 address LED driver circuits and lighting device configurations. US8629631B1 covers methods for improving LED driver start-up behaviour under reduced input voltage conditions — a technically specific control-circuit innovation. US7358706B2 protects power factor correction control methods, a fundamental requirement for energy-compliant LED drivers globally.
Taken together, these patents represent a layered defensive and offensive portfolio spanning optical, electrical, and control-circuit innovations in LED technology. For competitors, the breadth of the portfolio means that designing around any single patent may still leave exposure on the remaining five. The portfolio’s coverage of both hardware configurations and control methods makes it particularly potent against manufacturers of integrated LED luminaire and driver assemblies. Signify’s willingness to assert all six simultaneously signals that it will pursue broad coverage rather than cherry-picking a single claim.
Should your LED product team run an FTO against these six Signify patents?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing directly viewable LED luminaires, asymmetric collimator optics, LED driver circuits, or power factor correction modules in the US market should treat this litigation as a direct trigger for an FTO review. Current Lighting Solutions is not the only target — Signify’s portfolio-level enforcement approach suggests these patents are actively monitored against a range of market participants. If your product integrates any of these technology elements, an independent FTO review is not optional.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map each claim of all six asserted patents against current product specifications and prior art in minutes. Eureka’s claim-level monitoring can alert you when Signify files continuations, divisionals, or new actions referencing these patent families — giving your team early warning before litigation is filed. Start with the LED driver start-up and power factor correction patents (US8629631B1 and US7358706B2), which carry the broadest cross-product risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9249965B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LED lighting patent infringement cases in US 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 six-patent action and its quiet resolution carries enforcement and licensing signals worth tracking for any company in the LED and smart lighting supply chain.
Signify is actively enforcing a broad LED patent portfolio in US courts
Asserting six patents simultaneously across luminaires, collimators, drivers, and power factor correction signals a portfolio-level enforcement strategy rather than a single-patent dispute. Companies developing or distributing LED products in any of these technology domains should treat this filing as a signal that Signify monitors the market closely and is prepared to litigate at scale in Delaware.
Without-prejudice dismissal preserves a recurring litigation threat
Current Lighting Solutions secured no invalidity ruling and no covenant not to sue. The six asserted patents remain valid and enforceable. If any commercial arrangement underlying this dismissal breaks down, Signify can refile with the same patent portfolio. Competitors in the LED driver and luminaire space facing similar products should note that the enforcement threat has not been extinguished — only paused.
Signify v Current — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 15 February 2024, after 216 days. All claims and counterclaims were closed with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was made on infringement or validity.
Signify asserted six patents: US9249965B2 (directly viewable luminaire), US7262559B2 (asymmetric LED collimator), US7654703B2 (LED driver), US7670038B2 (lighting device), US8629631B1 (LED driver start-up at reduced input voltage), and US7358706B2 (power factor correction control methods and apparatus).
Dismissed without prejudice means the case is closed procedurally but carries no bar on refiling. Signify retains the legal right to reassert any or all six patents against Current Lighting Solutions in a future action. No finding was made on infringement or invalidity, so the patents’ enforceability record is fully intact.
No judicial determination was made — the case ended by mutual stipulation before any merits ruling. The without-prejudice dismissal and symmetric cost allocation mean neither party publicly conceded. The underlying commercial terms, if any, were not disclosed in the public record.
Yes, in principle. The without-prejudice dismissal means Current Lighting Solutions obtained no invalidity ruling or covenant not to sue. All six Signify patents remain valid and enforceable. If any private arrangement between the parties were to break down, Signify could refile on the same patent portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.