Three cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in December attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., a patent case. In it, LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc. appeal a district court’s grant of summary judgment of eligibility and its order denying judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and no damages.
In their opening brief, the appellants argued that “Constellation’s four patents asserted against LG are ineligible under § 101, and Constellation failed to show infringement of those patents.” They contended “the District Court ignored precedent holding that amorphous optimization, unbound by any specific requirement, is an ineligible abstract idea.” As to infringement, they argued “Constellation violated” precedent “by presenting a mix-and-match infringement case, using evidence about an industry standard . . . for at least one limitation of each asserted claim.”
In its response brief, Constellation Designs argued the district court “correctly held that the asserted claims are patent eligible under both” of the required steps. It said “[t]he claims provide a concrete improvement to digital-communications technology,” which produces “benefits that were not possible using earlier technologies.” It further contended that, “[e]ven if the patents are directed to abstract ideas, the innovative way of constructing non-uniform constellations disclosed by the claim is eligible for patent protection.” Additionally, it argued, “[t]he jury’s finding that LG infringed the asserted patents is supported by substantial evidence” and Federal Circuit precedent “do[es] not prevent a plaintiff from using a standard alongside other evidence of infringement.”
In their reply brief, the appellants argued Constellation’s asserted claims “are patent-ineligible” because their “mathematical concept” of optimization fails to identify “any specific improvement” and, instead, “merely rehashes the abstract concept.” Moreover, they continue, Constellation fails “to show . . . that its claims are standard essential” by misinterpreting precedent “to save its infringement case.” Lastly, as to damages, they argue Constellation’s expert “failed to apportion” based on appropriate comparability criteria “to support built-in apportionment” and “his sole adjustment (upward) for inflation contradicts the [in]disputable evidence.”
An amicus brief was filed by Pearl TV in support of LG Electronics and reversal.
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Monday, December 1, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 201.