A pair of related decisions issued by the Federal Circuit in Trustees of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc. , Nos. 24-1243, -1244 (Fed. Cir. Mar 11, 2026), address two issues that often arise together in complex patent litigation: the evolving scope of patent eligibility under Alice, and the limits of sanctions imposed on litigation counsel.
The underlying dispute produced a $185 million jury verdict in favor of Columbia University against Gen Digital (formerly Symantec/NortonLifeLock) for infringement of cybersecurity patents developed by Columbia researchers. The district court also imposed significant litigation sanctions tied to a contempt finding against Gen Digital’s counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
In two companion appeals, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings on patent eligibility, while separately overturning the contempt sanction against counsel. Together, the opinions provide guidance on how courts should analyze software security patents under Alice and how far district courts may go when addressing alleged conflicts of interest involving litigation counsel.
Background of the dispute
The litigation concerned several Columbia patents related to detecting malicious activity in computer systems, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,487,322 and 7,979,115. These patents originated from research by Columbia professors studying techniques for monitoring and identifying suspicious behavior within computer processes.
Columbia asserted that Norton’s security products infringed the patents. After extensive litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, the case went to trial. The jury found that Gen Digital willfully infringed several claims and awarded $185,112,727 in damages.
The district court then enhanced the damages and awarded attorneys’ fees. A key factor in that decision was a sanction imposed on Norton’s trial counsel, Quinn Emanuel, after the court found the firm in civil contempt related to a separate inventorship dispute involving a different Norton patent.
Two appeals followed:
• Appeal No. 24-1243 addressed the infringement verdict and damages judgment.
• Appeal No. 24-1244 addressed the contempt sanction imposed on Quinn Emanuel.
The Federal Circuit resolved both appeals on the same day.
Patent eligibility: the verdict cannot stand yet
The most consequential ruling came in the infringement appeal. The Federal Circuit held that the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea at step one of the Alice framework.
The district court had reached the opposite conclusion and had even struck the §101 defense before trial. According to the Federal Circuit, that was error.
The patents describe techniques for monitoring computer processes and identifying potentially malicious behavior. The appellate court concluded that, at a high level, the claims recite the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data about system activity to detect anomalies.
This reasoning follows the court’s prior software eligibility cases, including Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SAP America v. InvestPic, and Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, all of which held that claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and reporting data often fall within the abstract-idea category.
Because the district court had ended the eligibility analysis at step one, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate step two of the Alice test. At step two, the court must determine whether the claims contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The practical consequence is that the $185 million verdict cannot stand unless the claims ultimately survive the full eligibility analysis on remand.
As Charles Gideon Korrell notes in reviewing the decision, the case reflects the Federal Circuit’s continued insistence that courts perform a careful and complete Alice analysis before allowing software patent claims to proceed to trial. Even very large jury verdicts may be undone if eligibility questions were prematurely resolved.
Other issues likely to reappear on remand
Although the court vacated the judgment based on eligibility, it addressed several other issues that may arise again if the claims ultimately survive the Alice analysis.
First, the court affirmed the district court’s claim constructions. Claim construction disputes often shape the eligibility inquiry, so leaving those constructions intact may influence how the district court analyzes step two.
Second, the Federal Circuit upheld the jury’s findings of infringement and willfulness. In other words, if the claims are eventually deemed patent-eligible, the liability findings could potentially remain intact.
Third, the court addressed damages based on foreign sales. The district court had allowed Columbia to recover damages tied to certain products sold outside the United States. The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred in denying Gen Digital’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on that issue.
The opinion therefore reinforces the limitations on recovering damages based on extraterritorial conduct, a recurring issue in technology patent cases.
Charles Gideon Korrell observes that this aspect of the ruling fits within a broader trend in which courts carefully police the geographic scope of patent remedies, particularly when software products are sold globally.
The companion appeal: limits on contempt sanctions
The second appeal involved a separate but related controversy concerning inventorship of another Norton patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,549,643.
Columbia had argued that two Columbia professors were the true inventors, or at least joint inventors, of that patent. During the inventorship dispute, the district court concluded that Quinn Emanuel had a conflict of interest because it represented both Gen Digital and a former Norton employee, Marc Dacier.
The court ruled that the conflict automatically terminated Quinn’s representation of Dacier and ordered the firm to disclose communications that it considered privileged. When Quinn refused, the district court held the firm in civil contempt.
As a sanction, the court imposed a negative inference that Dacier’s testimony would have supported Columbia’s position. That inference later influenced the court’s decision to award enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.
The Federal Circuit vacated the contempt finding.
The appellate court concluded that the district court’s conflict-of-interest analysis and resulting sanctions were legally flawed. The court determined that the record did not support the conclusion that Quinn’s representation had automatically terminated or that the firm could be compelled to disclose privileged communications.
Because the contempt finding was invalid, the sanctions tied to it could not stand.
Charles Gideon Korrell explains that the ruling underscores an important principle: sanctions against litigation counsel must be grounded in clear legal authority and carefully supported factual findings. Courts have substantial discretion in managing litigation, but that discretion is not unlimited.
Broader implications for patent litigation
The combined decisions highlight three themes that frequently shape modern technology patent disputes.
First, eligibility challenges remain a powerful post-trial tool. Even after a jury verdict and significant damages award, the Federal Circuit will scrutinize whether the district court properly applied the Alice framework.
Second, courts continue to grapple with how to characterize software claims. Many cybersecurity and analytics patents involve monitoring system behavior and analyzing data patterns. Those features often place the claims close to the boundary between patent-eligible technological solutions and abstract data-analysis concepts.
Third, the companion decision shows that procedural rulings involving counsel can significantly affect the outcome of high-stakes litigation. When sanctions are imposed in ways that influence liability or damages findings, appellate courts are likely to examine those rulings carefully.
Charles Gideon Korrell believes the paired decisions demonstrate how intertwined procedural and substantive issues can become in patent cases. A sanctions ruling involving counsel can shape damages and fee awards, while eligibility determinations can erase entire verdicts after years of litigation.
Looking ahead
On remand, the key question will be whether Columbia can demonstrate an inventive concept at step two of the Alice analysis. If the claims survive that stage, the litigation may return to disputes over damages and foreign sales.
If the claims fail step two, however, the once-massive verdict may disappear entirely.
Either way, the Federal Circuit’s decisions provide another data point in the ongoing evolution of software patent law and the procedural boundaries governing complex intellectual property litigation.