The Federal Circuit’s decision in Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. ecobee Technologies ULC , Case No. 25-1045 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 4, 2026 ), delivers several significant holdings for patent litigators and technology companies. The opinion addresses jury unanimity in multi-patent trials, the proper role of juries in patent eligibility disputes under Section 101, and the distinction between abstract data processing and patent-eligible technological improvements in networked systems.
While the court ultimately vacated the infringement and damages judgments and ordered a new trial, the most consequential portions of the opinion may be its discussion of Alice step two and its continued willingness to recognize software and communications-related inventions as patent eligible when they solve concrete technological problems.
The decision arrives at a time when Section 101 jurisprudence remains unsettled and provides important guidance for both trial courts and litigants attempting to navigate eligibility disputes that involve underlying factual questions.
Background of the Dispute
Ollnova asserted four patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,860,495, 8,264,371, 7,746,887, and 8,224,282) against ecobee relating to wireless building automation systems. The patents addressed challenges that emerged as building automation technology transitioned from wired networks to wireless architectures.
According to the patents, wireless building automation systems faced several recurring technical problems:
- Limited bandwidth
- Increased power consumption
- Communication failures
- Data loss
- Reliability concerns in distributed networks
A jury found infringement of at least one asserted patent, invalidated one of the patents, rejected ecobee’s Section 101 challenge to another patent, and awarded Ollnova $11.5 million in lump-sum damages.
On appeal, ecobee challenged nearly every major aspect of the verdict.
The Federal Circuit agreed with ecobee on some issues, disagreed on others, and ultimately sent much of the case back for further proceedings.
The Verdict Form Problem: Optis Strikes Again
Perhaps the easiest issue for the Federal Circuit was the verdict form.
The district court asked the jury a single infringement question covering all asserted patents:
Did ecobee infringe any asserted claim of any asserted patent?
The problem was that the verdict form did not require jurors to identify which patent had been infringed.
The Federal Circuit relied heavily on its recent decision in Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., which held that a similar verdict structure violated the requirement of jury unanimity.
The concern is straightforward. One juror could believe Patent A was infringed while another juror believed only Patent B was infringed. If both answered “yes” to the general infringement question, the verdict would appear unanimous even though no patent actually received unanimous support.
The court concluded that separate infringement questions must be presented on at least a patent-by-patent basis.
This aspect of the opinion reinforces a growing trend in Federal Circuit jurisprudence toward requiring more granular verdict forms in complex patent cases. Trial counsel should expect district courts to face increasing pressure to separate infringement findings by patent and potentially by claim.
Because the infringement verdict was vacated, the $11.5 million damages award necessarily fell with it.
A Significant New Development in Alice Step Two Procedure
The most important aspect of the opinion concerns the court’s treatment of the ‘495 patent and Alice step two.
The district court had previously concluded that the patent was directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one. Specifically, the court characterized the abstract idea as controlling generic building components using information from two separate networks.
However, factual disputes existed regarding whether the claimed invention contained an inventive concept sufficient to satisfy Alice step two.
Those factual disputes were submitted to the jury.
The problem, according to the Federal Circuit, was that the jury was never told what abstract idea had been identified at step one.
Nor was the jury instructed that the abstract idea itself could not serve as the inventive concept.
The court viewed this as a fundamental flaw.
Relying heavily on Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus, BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Trading Technologies, ChargePoint, and Bascom, the court emphasized that Alice step two necessarily asks:
“What else is there in the claims beyond the abstract idea?”
Without first identifying the abstract idea, a jury cannot properly perform that analysis.
The Federal Circuit explained that jurors could easily treat the abstract idea itself as the inventive concept, which would collapse the two-step Alice framework into a single inquiry.
As the court noted, Federal Circuit precedent repeatedly holds that the abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept regardless of how innovative the concept may appear.
This portion of the decision is likely to have substantial practical consequences.
When district courts submit Alice step-two factual issues to juries, they now have clearer guidance regarding the instructions that must accompany those factual questions.
Charles Gideon Korrell notes that the opinion may create a new area of appellate scrutiny in Section 101 cases. Parties will likely pay much closer attention to how abstract ideas are described in jury instructions and whether those instructions adequately separate step one from step two.
No JMOL on the ‘495 Patent
Although the court found instructional error, it rejected ecobee’s argument that the patent was ineligible as a matter of law.
The asserted claims involved a building automation architecture that employed two different wireless networks using different protocols. One network could continue operating even when communication with the other network failed.
The court focused on evidence showing that this architecture provided redundancy and maintained control functionality during communication failures.
Importantly, the court relied on Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., which recognized that a technological architecture solving a technological problem can provide the inventive concept necessary under Alice step two.
The court found sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s determination that the dual-network architecture was not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
As a result, ecobee was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The ‘887 Patent Survives Alice Step One
The court’s analysis of the ‘887 patent continues a line of Federal Circuit cases distinguishing technological network improvements from abstract information processing.
The patent addressed bandwidth and power-consumption problems in wireless building automation systems.
Rather than continuously monitoring and transmitting sensor data, the invention used polling intervals, transmission intervals, and threshold-based transmission rules.
Information was transmitted only when certain conditions were met.
ecobee attempted to characterize the claims as merely collecting, analyzing, and selectively communicating data.
The Federal Circuit rejected that framing.
Drawing support from cases such as Packet Intelligence v. NetScout, CardioNet v. InfoBionic, and Data Engine Technologies v. Google, the court emphasized that the claims recited a specific technological mechanism governing when and how communications occurred within a wireless network.
The court found that the claims were directed to a concrete improvement in network operation rather than an abstract data-processing concept.
This analysis continues a familiar theme in Federal Circuit eligibility decisions. Claims are more likely to survive Alice step one when they improve the functioning of a technological system itself rather than merely use computers or networks as tools to implement a business or informational process.
The ‘371 Patent Also Survives Section 101
The court reached a similar conclusion regarding the ‘371 patent.
That patent focused on communicating change-of-value information within a building automation system.
The claims involved two key concepts:
- Aggregating change-of-value messages from multiple devices into a single update.
- Repeatedly transmitting updates until acknowledgment was received.
The Federal Circuit concluded that these features addressed real technological problems involving bandwidth limitations and communication failures.
Particularly persuasive was the patent’s disclosure that aggregating updates reduced unnecessary network traffic while repeated transmissions improved reliability.
The court compared the claims favorably to those upheld in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., where specific modifications to communication protocols produced functional improvements in network operation.
Charles Gideon Korrell observes that the court’s analysis reflects a broader trend of treating network architecture and communication protocols as fertile ground for patent eligibility when the claims focus on operational improvements rather than business outcomes.
Infringement of the ‘371 Patent Survives Review
ecobee also argued that its thermostats did not infringe because they did not repeatedly send the same update message.
The Federal Circuit rejected that argument.
Ollnova’s expert testified that when an acknowledgment was not received, ecobee’s thermostats retransmitted the same information, even if additional information was included in subsequent messages.
The court found that this testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the jury’s infringement determination.
Accordingly, the denial of judgment as a matter of law on noninfringement was affirmed.
What Makes This Opinion Important
This case matters for several reasons.
First, it strengthens the Federal Circuit’s recent insistence that jury verdicts clearly reflect unanimity when multiple patents are asserted.
Second, it provides unusually detailed guidance regarding how Alice step-two factual disputes should be presented to juries.
Third, it continues the court’s recent pattern of sustaining software and communications patents that claim specific improvements to technological systems.
Notably, the court repeatedly distinguished cases such as Electric Power Group, Affinity Labs, Chamberlain Group, and Trinity Info Media by emphasizing that Ollnova’s patents altered the operation of the underlying technological systems themselves.
That distinction remains central to modern Section 101 doctrine.
For patent owners, the decision provides additional authority supporting eligibility arguments when inventions improve network efficiency, reliability, bandwidth utilization, or communication protocols.
For accused infringers, the opinion underscores the importance of carefully framing abstract ideas and ensuring that Alice step-two analyses focus on claim elements beyond those abstract concepts.
Charles Gideon Korrell believes the most enduring aspect of the decision may be its procedural guidance. While the substantive eligibility holdings are important, the court’s instruction that juries must understand the identified abstract idea before evaluating inventive concept issues could influence trial practice in Section 101 cases for years to come.
Looking Ahead
On remand, the parties will face a new infringement trial and a renewed Alice step-two analysis for the ‘495 patent.
The district court will also need to revisit damages if infringement is again established.
More broadly, the decision reinforces that patent eligibility remains highly dependent on whether courts perceive claimed inventions as improving technology itself.
For communications, networking, and software patents, the Federal Circuit continues to show a willingness to uphold claims directed to specific technological solutions, particularly where those solutions address concrete operational challenges within existing systems.
Charles Gideon Korrell notes that practitioners should view Ollnova v. ecobee as both a Section 101 decision and a trial-practice decision. Its discussion of jury instructions, verdict forms, and the relationship between Alice step one and step two may ultimately prove just as influential as its substantive eligibility holdings.
Leave a Reply