Geigtech East Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:18-cv-05290
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Geigtech East Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Co., Judge McMahon entered final judgment finding willful patent infringement, awarding damages, and ordering a permanent injunction.
GeigTech East Bay LLC received patent-infringement damages, interest, costs, and injunctive relief. Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. was found to have willfully infringed the ’717 patent and is subject to the permanent injunction and judgment obligations. James Geiger was not held liable on Lutron’s defamation claim.
What happened
Geigtech East Bay LLC and Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. litigated claims involving several patents, trade dress, and defamation. The court entered judgment after two bench trials and jury verdicts delivered in February and November 2024.
The court found that Lutron infringed claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, and 12 of GeigTech’s ’717 patent, that the infringement was willful, and that those claims were not invalid or unenforceable. GeigTech was awarded $5,344,000 in damages, $453,832.09 in prejudgment interest, and $159,921.06 in court costs. The court also entered a permanent injunction against certain Lutron shading-system products. GeigTech did not prove its trade-dress claim, Lutron did not prove its defamation claim, and two other patent claims were dismissed without prejudice after GeigTech voluntarily dismissed or withdrew them.
Judge Colleen McMahon’s final judgment resolves all claims and starts the time for filing an appeal. Post-judgment interest will accrue at 3.90% until Lutron pays the judgment, and the injunction will remain in effect until the ’717 patent expires.
The detailed version
- Geigtech East Bay LLC v. Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-05290
- Colleen McMahon
- Aug. 14, 2025
Background
The court entered a final judgment under Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The judgment followed two bench trials, a jury verdict delivered on February 13, 2024, and a later jury verdict delivered on November 20, 2024.
Judgment on the Claims
The court found that Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. infringed claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,294,717, known as the ’717 patent. It found that Lutron’s infringement was willful and that those patent claims were not invalid or unenforceable.
The court found that GeigTech East Bay LLC did not prove its trade-dress claim under the Lanham Act or common law. It also found that Lutron did not prove its defamation claim against GeigTech or James Geiger.
GeigTech had voluntarily dismissed its claim concerning infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,237,821 without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling that claim. The court therefore dismissed that claim without prejudice. GeigTech also voluntarily withdrew its claim concerning infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,822,872. Treating that withdrawal as similar to a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a), the court dismissed that claim without prejudice as well.
Damages, Interest, and Costs
The court awarded GeigTech $5,344,000 in damages from Lutron. That amount included the court’s doubling of the $2,672,000 damages amount awarded by the jury. The court also awarded $453,832.09 in prejudgment interest and $159,921.06 in court costs.
Post-judgment interest on the judgment amount, including enhanced damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, accrues from August 14, 2025, until Lutron pays the full amount. The interest rate is 3.90%, calculated daily and compounded annually under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Permanent Injunction
The final judgment incorporated the permanent injunction previously ordered by the court. Lutron and specified persons acting for or with Lutron are permanently barred from making, offering for sale, selling, importing into the United States, or installing the adjudged infringing Palladiom Shading System products. The injunction also covers Lutron shading-system products that are not meaningfully different from those adjudged infringing with respect to the elements shown to satisfy the ’717 patent claims.
The injunction does not bar Lutron from importing existing stock of the infringing product so that the shades can be modified to include a newly designed Palladiom feature that Lutron claims is non-infringing. The injunction remains in effect until the ’717 patent expires.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon stated that the final judgment resolves all claims of all parties and starts the time for filing an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.