June 05, 2025
A New York federal judge has refused to throw out a jury's verdict finding that lighting fixture company Lutron Electronics infringed a window shade patent owned by GeigTech, finding that Lutron owes $5.3 million in damages rather than the initial $2.7 million amount awarded by the jury.
November 22, 2024
A federal jury in New York has found in a retrial that lighting fixture company Lutron Electronics should have to pony up $2.67 million for infringing a company's window shade patent.
November 04, 2024
A New York federal judge has apologized for not being prepared at a pretrial conference ahead of a damages retrial between lighting fixture company Lutron Electronics and the company whose window shade patent it was found to infringe, GeigTech East Bay.
July 30, 2024
A New York federal judge Tuesday kept in place a jury's verdict holding that lighting fixture company Lutron Electronics Co. willfully infringed rival GeigTech East Bay's window shade patent, but said $34.6 million for damages is excessive and, instead, offered GeigTech $3.8 million or a new damages trial.
April 22, 2024
Home lighting fixtures company Lutron and rival GeigTech are continuing their legal fight after a New York federal jury found that Lutron owes GeigTech $34.6 million for infringing a patent, with Lutron saying the award was "grossly excessive."
March 22, 2024
A New York federal judge has thrown out trade dress claims that GeigTech brought against home lighting fixtures company Lutron, writing that "there is no evidence that Lutron wanted members of the consuming public to think that it was selling J. Geiger shades."
March 15, 2024
A New York federal jury has found that home lighting fixtures company Lutron owes GeigTech $34.6 million for infringing its patent on window shade brackets, while also finding that the infringement was willful.
December 11, 2023
A New York federal judge says she found "herself struggling" with the efforts of a home fixtures company to bring its patent challenge in front of a jury after it sank at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, asking the company's lawyers "how can this possibly be the correct standard?"