Background
Ollnova Technologies Ltd sued ecobee Technologies ULC for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four patents related to wireless communications in building automation systems. The jury found ecobee infringed at least one patent, awarded Ollnova eleven point five million dollars in damages, and found the forty-nine-five patent’s claims were not directed only to well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. ecobee appealed, challenging the verdict form, jury instructions, and the district court’s denial of motions to dismiss and for judgment as a matter of law regarding patent eligibility under Section one zero one of the Patent Act.
The court’s reasoning
The Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by submitting a single infringement question covering all asserted patents, as this created an unacceptable risk of a non-unanimous verdict. The court further found that the jury instructions for the forty-nine-five patent were erroneous because they failed to identify the abstract idea, preventing the jury from properly evaluating whether the claims contained an inventive concept beyond that abstract idea. However, the court affirmed that the eighty-eight-seven and three-seven-one patents are not directed to an abstract idea and affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law regarding the forty-nine-five patent’s eligibility.
What it means going forward
The decision requires a new trial on infringement and damages, with specific jury instructions required to identify the abstract idea for the forty-nine-five patent. It reinforces the necessity of separate verdict questions for each asserted patent to ensure jury unanimity and clarifies the procedural requirements for Alice step two jury instructions.