The Federal Circuit’s new precedential decision in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies ULC may have significant implications for how patent cases are tried, particularly in multi-patent disputes involving subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In a decision that focused less on the underlying smart thermostat technology and more on trial structure itself, the court vacated an $11.5 million jury verdict and ordered a new trial based on errors in the verdict form and jury instructions. The opinion offers important guidance for companies on both sides of patent infringement claims and Alice eligibility issues before a jury.
Background
Ollnova sued ecobee in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four patents related to wireless building automation systems and accusing ecobee’s smart thermostats of infringement.
The jury found infringement of at least one asserted patent; concluded that some, but not all, of the patents were invalid; and awarded Ollnova $11.5 million in damages.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded for a new trial based not on the strength of the underlying technology, but on how the case was presented to the jury. The court's most notable holdings fall into two areas.
1. The Federal Circuit Rejects Combined Infringement Questions in Multi-Patent Cases
The court first focused on the structure of the verdict form itself.
The district court had submitted a single infringement question covering all four asserted patents, asking whether ecobee infringed “ANY” asserted claim. While some courts, including judges in the Eastern District of Texas, had followed that approach for years, the Federal Circuit held that combining multiple patents into a single infringement question created an unacceptable risk of a non-unanimous verdict, where different jurors could believe different patents were infringed while still answering “yes” without unanimously agreeing on infringement of the same patent or claim.
Relying on its 2025 decision in Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple, the Federal Circuit held that when multiple patents are asserted as separate causes of action, the verdict form must, at a minimum, require separate infringement findings for each asserted patent.
For trial teams, the decision is a reminder that verdict form structure is not merely administrative and can directly affect whether a trial result survives appeal.
2. The Court Clarifies What Juries Must Be Told at Alice Step Two
The Federal Circuit also addressed how subject-matter eligibility issues should be presented to juries.
Before trial, the district court had already concluded at Alice step one that one asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea. The remaining factual issues related to Alice step two, whether the claim elements provide an inventive concept, were submitted to the jury.
But the jury instructions never identified what the abstract idea actually was. Nor did they explain the legal rule that the abstract idea itself cannot serve as the inventive concept necessary to establish patent eligibility.
The Federal Circuit held that both omissions were reversible error. According to the court, the step-two inquiry necessarily asks whether the claims contain an inventive concept beyond the identified abstract idea. Without first defining the abstract idea for the jury, the instructions effectively permitted the jury to rely on the abstract idea itself to find eligibility, something Alice prohibits.
At the same time, the court was careful to preserve existing district court practice at the pleading and summary judgment stages. The opinion confirms that courts may still deny § 101 motions based on unresolved factual disputes without fully resolving Alice step one at that stage of the case.
The key limitation, according to the Federal Circuit, is procedural timing: Before step two goes to a jury, the abstract idea must be identified.
Key Takeaways for Technology Companies on Both Sides of Patent Disputes
- Verdict form structure is not a formality and deserves strategic attention. The decision reinforces that verdict form design can materially affect the strength of a verdict on appeal. Multi-patent cases require patent-by-patent infringement questions, at a minimum. Litigants should propose and insist on that structure, or risk having to redo the trial years after the fact.
- 101 jury instructions require full Alice framework. If factual disputes under § 101 are submitted to a jury, the jury instructions must clearly identify the abstract idea identified at step one and explain that the abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept.
- District courts can still defer step one and retain flexibility at the motion stage. The Federal Circuit did not require district courts to conclusively resolve Alice step one before denying motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions. But once step two is presented to a jury, the court must first define the abstract idea framework for the jury’s analysis.
The decision reflects the Federal Circuit’s continued focus on procedural precision in patent trials, particularly in cases involving multiple asserted patents and complex § 101 issues. For technology companies litigating patent disputes, Ollnova serves as another reminder that when it comes to trial, procedural choices can decide the merits.