Key takeaways

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a patent infringement verdict due to a defective jury verdict form.

Appellate judges ruled that verdict forms must pose infringement questions on at least a patent-by-patent basis.

The court addressed district court jury instruction requirements for factual disputes underlying Section 101 patent eligibility.

Three out of four patents in the dispute cleared the Section 101 eligibility hurdle.

The case is remanded for further proceedings, leaving a dispute over prejudgment interest unresolved for now.

The Decision

On June 4, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a trial verdict in a prominent patent dispute because the trial court provided a defective verdict form to the jury. In Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies Ulc, the appellate court ruled that jury verdict forms in patent litigation must ask infringement questions on at least a patent-by-patent basis. Because the district court failed to separate the infringement questions for the different patents asserted at trial, the Federal Circuit vacated the resulting verdict and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

The decision also addressed the requirements for district court instructions regarding factual issues underlying Section 101 patent eligibility. While the appellate court found that three of the four patents at issue successfully cleared the Section 101 patent eligibility hurdle, the structural defects in the verdict form required tossing the infringement findings entirely. The appeal also included a dispute regarding the district court's denial of requested prejudgment interest, an issue tied to the now-vacated verdict.

Why It Matters

The Federal Circuit's ruling establishes a firm boundary for how trial courts must present complex patent disputes to juries. When a plaintiff asserts multiple patents in a single trial, a generalized verdict form makes it impossible for an appellate court to determine which specific patents the jury believed were infringed. If a jury simply returns a broad finding of liability without specifying the patent, and one of those patents is later invalidated or found not infringed as a matter of law, the entire verdict becomes unreviewable and must be thrown out.

By mandating that verdict forms ask infringement questions on at least a patent-by-patent basis, the appellate court forces trial courts to build a clear record. This requirement protects the resources of the judicial system. A segmented verdict allows an appellate court to uphold infringement findings on valid patents even if it reverses findings on others, avoiding the need for a complete retrial. Furthermore, the court's guidance on Section 101 jury instructions clarifies how trial judges should handle factual disputes that inform the legal question of whether an invention is eligible for patent protection.

Who Should Care

For lawyers

Patent litigators must carefully review and object to proposed verdict forms that group multiple patents or claims into single, generalized questions. Failing to secure a patent-by-patent breakdown on the verdict form risks having a hard-fought trial victory wiped out on appeal. Additionally, trial counsel must pay close attention to how they draft jury instructions regarding the factual underpinnings of Section 101 eligibility. The decision in Ollnova Technologies Ltd v. Ecobee Technologies Ulc confirms that while Section 101 is ultimately a question of law, any underlying factual disputes submitted to the jury require precise instructions that align with Federal Circuit precedent.

For consumers/parties

For technology companies and patent holders, this decision means that patent trials will require highly specific paperwork before the jury deliberates. A company defending against multiple patent infringement claims can use this rule to ensure the jury evaluates each patent individually, preventing a spillover effect where a jury assumes that if one patent is infringed, all of them are. For patent owners, the ruling means a minor administrative error by the trial court—like using a simplified form to save time—can result in years of additional litigation and the loss of a favorable verdict.

Legal Background

Patent infringement trials often involve multiple patents, each containing multiple claims. Under federal patent law, each claim defines a distinct invention and must be evaluated separately for both validity and infringement. Historically, trial courts have sometimes utilized general verdict forms to simplify the jury's task, asking a single question about whether the defendant infringed the plaintiff's intellectual property.

However, appellate review requires a clear understanding of the jury's specific findings. When a verdict form lumps multiple patents together, the appellate court cannot determine the basis for the jury's decision. If the appellate court determines that one of the grouped patents is invalid or not infringed, a general verdict cannot stand because the jury might have based its entire liability finding on that single, defective patent.

Additionally, patent litigation frequently involves challenges under Section 101 of the Patent Act, which determines whether the subject matter of the patent is eligible for protection. While patent eligibility is a question of law decided by the judge, it can involve underlying factual disputes—such as whether a specific element was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the industry. Submitting these factual questions to a jury requires careful instruction to ensure the jury does not improperly decide the ultimate legal question.

What the Court Did

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit evaluated the verdict form provided to the jury and determined it was structurally defective. The appellate court ruled that the district court erred by not requiring the jury to answer infringement questions on at least a patent-by-patent basis. Because the form lacked this necessary granularity, the Federal Circuit vacated the verdict entirely.

The court also reviewed the patents under Section 101. The appellate panel found that three of the four patents at issue cleared the Section 101 patent eligibility hurdle. Despite this partial victory for the patent owner on eligibility, the defective verdict form meant the infringement findings could not be salvaged. The court addressed the requirements for district court instructions regarding the factual issues underlying Section 101, providing guidance on how these issues should be presented to the jury.

Finally, because the court vacated the underlying verdict, it remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. The appeal had also included a dispute regarding the district court's denial of requested prejudgment interest. With the verdict vacated, the foundation for calculating or awarding prejudgment interest was removed, leaving the issue to be resolved in the subsequent proceedings.

How It May Be Applied

Going forward, district courts presiding over patent trials will likely enforce strict formatting requirements for jury verdict forms, ensuring that each asserted patent receives its own specific line item for infringement and validity. Litigators will need to prepare more detailed verdict forms and be prepared to explain the mechanics of each individual patent to the jury to avoid confusion.

The decision also provides a roadmap for handling Section 101 factual disputes at trial. District courts will need to craft jury instructions that clearly isolate the factual questions—such as the state of the art at the time of the invention—without asking the jury to rule on the legal conclusion of patent eligibility. This will likely lead to more extensive pre-trial battles over the exact phrasing of jury instructions and verdict form questions.

Verdict Form Requirements

Verdict Form Element	Defective Approach	Compliant Approach
Infringement Questions	Grouping multiple patents into a single "Did the defendant infringe?" question.	Asking infringement questions on at least a patent-by-patent basis.
Section 101 Factual Issues	Asking the jury to determine if the patent is eligible under Section 101.	Instructing the jury only on specific underlying factual disputes.
Appellate Review	Results in a vacated verdict if any grouped patent is found invalid.	Allows the appellate court to uphold findings on valid patents.

Plain-English Callout

Understanding Patent-by-Patent Verdicts and Section 101

In patent lawsuits, a plaintiff often accuses a defendant of violating several different patents at the same time. The Federal Circuit's ruling means that when the jury makes its final decision, it cannot simply say "the defendant is guilty of patent infringement." Instead, the jury must fill out a form that specifically answers whether the defendant infringed Patent A, Patent B, and so on. This is called a patent-by-patent basis. If the jury does not do this, the appeals court cannot tell which patents the jury based its decision on, and the whole trial might have to be done over. Additionally, the court discussed "Section 101," which is the part of the law that decides if an idea is the kind of thing that can be patented at all (like a machine) or if it is something that cannot be patented (like a law of nature or an abstract idea).

This article is general legal information and commentary about legal developments. It is not legal advice, does not address your specific situation, and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney. Reading this article and contacting us through this website do not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources & authorities

Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies Ulc — source
Ollnova Technologies Ltd v. Ecobee Technologies Ulc — source

Fed. Circ. Vacates Ollnova Patent Verdict Over Jury Form

Key takeaways