As we reported yesterday, two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in April attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Ollnova Technolodies, Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies ULC, a patent case. In it, the patent owner Ollnova appeals a denial of requested prejudgment interest, and the accused infringer Ecobee cross-appeals the lower court’s decisions on jury instructions and multiple issues including eligibility, infringement, damages, and marking. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, Ollnova asks, “when a jury awards a lump-sum reasonable royalty as of the hypothetical negotiation date,” does 35 U.S.C. § 286 “foreclose prejudgment interest prior to six years before the complaint”? Contending the district court below “failed to fully compensate Ollnova for ecobee’s infringement,” Ollnova argues that including this prejudgment interest would “fairly compensate” it for “lost value from when ecobee should have paid the lump-sum royalty.” Ollnova contends the “date of first infringement” should apply “for purposes of calculating the district court’s award of prejudgment interest,” rather than limiting damages by imposing a “second date of ‘first infringement’” that is six years before the filing of the complaint.
In its principal and response brief, Ecobee argues the district court erred with respect to a first patent by “presenting jury instructions and a verdict form question . . . that were incomplete, flawed, and highly prejudicial” because they failed to “inform the jury that the claims had been found to be directed to an abstract idea, identify what that abstract idea was, and instruct the jury that it must disregard that abstract idea when considering whether the claims disclose an inventive concept.” Moreover, it contends, the claims in that patent “are ineligible under Section 101 and no reasonable jury could have found otherwise.” Next, with respect to two other patents, Ecobee argues the claims “are ineligible under Section 101 because they merely claim abstract ideas.” Ecobee also contends its products do not infringe one patent’s claims because the “plain claim language requires repeated communication of a ‘change-of-value update’—’at regular intervals according to a schedule or until a change-of-value acknowledgment is received’—which ecobee’s products do not do.” Ecobee also argues the damages award “is based on expert theories and evidence that are inadmissible.” Moreover, it contends, the district court erred in ruling on its motion for failure to mark. And, it contends, the district court “erred by utilizing a verdict form question on infringement (Question 1) that improperly combined all claims and counterclaims concerning infringement of the four Asserted Patents into a single question.” Finally, with respect to Ollnova’s appeal, Ecobee maintains the Federal Circuit “should not disturb the District Court’s calculation of prejudgment interest as beginning at the start of the damages period under the appropriate statutes, rather than beginning at a hypothetical negotiation date that occurred four years before the earliest date damages could accrue under the statute of limitations.”
In its response and reply brief, Ollnova argues its claims are patent eligible. As to two of the patents, it contends the lower court “correctly” determined the “claims were not directed to an abstract idea.” Ollnova also maintains the lower court’s “jury instructions and verdict form” were “not erroneous for failing to provide additional detail.” It emphasizes the lower court properly “instructed the jury that it must consider infringement claim-by-claim,” and that the lower court is not required to “instruct the jury on an aspect of the law that was never argued at trial.” Ollnova further argues the lower court appropriately found its expert “properly applied the plain and ordinary meaning” of the claims’ terms, and correctly concluded “Ecoboo waived its improper claim construction” argument. Finally, Ollnova asserts, “Ecobee’s miscellaneous complaints” regarding whether the patents are “entitled to equal weight also fail” because an admissibility of an expert’s opinion “requires only that a damages expert account for differences” when applying a comparable license methodology.
In its reply brief related to its cross-appeal, Ecobee argues that, first, “Ollnova mischaracterizes the record,” and states that, “regardless of how Ollnova characterizes the record, the District Court committed an error of law that taints the verdict” through the jury instructions and verdict form. It also contends that Ollnova’s “attempts to define an inventive concept fail because they lack support in the claim” and their “analogies to precedent fail” because “there is no data enhancement or unconventional distributed architecture.” Moreover, Ecobee asserts, two patent’s asserted claims do not provide “any technological improvement to any particular technology, as confirmed by the undisputedly conventional nature of the recite technology.” Ecobee also attacks the damages calculations, maintaining that “Ollnova offers no record evidence that all patents were equal in value.” Ecobee goes further and indicates “Ollnova does not contend that it provided sufficient evidence to support damages on pre-Complaint sales, so its marking failures require a new trial.” Finally, Ecobee argues, “the verdict form’s single infringement question, which grouped all four patents’ claims together, requires a new trial because it undisputedly deprived [E]cobee of a decision on each counterclaim.”
The case attracted an amicus brief filed by SAP America, Inc., HP Inc., Forescout Technologies, Inc., and High Tech Inventors Alliance. They support Ecobee.
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 201.