Tag: JMOL
-
Versata v. Ford: Modified Opinion Clarifies Review of $82 Million Contract Verdict
The Federal Circuit has modified its precedential opinion in Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., Case Nos. 2024-1140, 2024-1206, and 2024-1234, without changing the judgment. The September 10, 2026 modification leaves intact the court’s trade-secret holdings, its order for a new trial on trade-secret damages, and its reinstatement of an $82.26 million breach-of-contract verdict.…
-
Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific: Federal Circuit Reverses Jury Verdict on Anticipation and the Meaning of “Fiber”
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corp., Case Nos. 2024-2062 and 2024-2063 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2026), reverses a patent-infringement judgment involving drug-eluting coronary stents and illustrates how a jury verdict cannot survive when the asserted distinctions from the prior art are absent from…
-
Ollnova v. ecobee: Federal Circuit Clarifies Alice Step Two and Technical-Improvement Analysis
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…
-
Barry v. DePuy Synthes: Federal Circuit Limits Daubert Exclusion of Patent Experts
On January 20, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision clarifying the boundary between judicial gatekeeping under Daubert and the jury’s role as factfinder in patent infringement trials. In Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies, the court reversed the exclusion of two key experts and vacated a judgment as a matter of law entered after…
-
Coda Development v. Goodyear: Federal Circuit Wipes Out $64M Trade Secret Verdict
On December 8, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Ohio’s judgment as a matter of law wiping out a $64 million jury verdict in Coda Development s.r.o. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 23-1880 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2025). The court concluded that no reasonable jury could have found Goodyear liable…
-
Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC: When Expert Testimony Cannot Carry the Infringement Verdict
On September 24, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a sweeping reversal of a significant Eastern District of Texas jury verdict in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, vacating a $166 million damages award and reversing the denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement. The decision underscores a recurring theme in…
-
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC: When “Identical” Means Identical—and the Doctrine of Equivalents Is Not a Jury Mulligan
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, No. 23-2350 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2025), offers a sharp reminder that not every jury verdict survives appellate scrutiny, particularly where infringement theories stretch claim language or rely on generalized expert testimony. In a sweeping reversal, the court vacated a Delaware…
-
Mondis v. LG: Federal Circuit Reverses Jury Verdict for Lack of Written Description
The Federal Circuit’s August 8, 2025 decision in Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. is another reminder that even a hard-fought jury verdict—complete with a finding of willfulness and tens of millions of dollars in damages—can evaporate if the asserted claims cannot survive scrutiny under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Once again, the court reversed…