When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict

Written by:Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION]

Before Chen, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Summary: A verdict form that asks a single question as to whether the defendant infringed any asserted claim is improper because it does not ensure a unanimous jury finding of infringement as to each asserted patent.

Ollnova sued ecobee for infringement of four patents relating to wireless communications systems. The district court’s verdict form included only a single infringement question covering all asserted patents:

“Did Ollnova, the Plaintiff, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ecobee, the Defendant, infringed ANY of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents?”

The jury returned a verdict answering Yes to the infringement question, but it did not identify which patent or patents were infringed. ecobee moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict form improperly allowed the jury to find liability without a unanimous finding that ecobee infringed any particular claim of any patent. The district court denied ecobee’s motion, and ecobee appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the verdict form created a substantial risk that the verdict did not reflect unanimous agreement as to any particular patent. Because the verdict form asked a single infringement question encompassing multiple patents, it required a “Yes” answer even if individual jurors believed that different patents were infringed without unanimous agreement on any one patent. The Federal Circuit explained that because a patent infringement verdict must be unanimous as to each asserted patent, the verdict form “needed to have included … separate infringement questions for each asserted patent” to ensure unanimity. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit vacated the infringement judgment and the associated damages award and remanded for a new trial on infringement and damages.

Editor: Sean Murray