Appeal:
“Whether prejudgment interest for a lump sum reasonable royalty damages award should be calculated from the time of the hypothetical negotiation, which coincides with the date of first infringement, or be limited to the time period allowed under 35 U.S.C. § 286.”
Cross-Appeal:
1. “Whether ecobee is entitled to a new trial because the District Court’s jury instruction and verdict form on the ’495 patent’s ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 erroneously failed to: (1) identify the abstract idea to which the subject claims were found directed, and (2) instruct the jury to look for something more than the abstract idea to satisfy Alice Step Two?”
2. “Whether any reasonable jury could find that claims 1 and 2 of the ’495 patent are patent eligible where they merely recite conventional technology carrying out the abstract idea of controlling generic components using information from two separate networks?”
3. “Whether the District Court erred in denying ecobee’s motion to dismiss because the claims of the ’371 and ’887 patents are ineligible under Section 101, where those claims merely recite conventional technology operating in expected ways to carry out abstract ideas involving wirelessly communicating data?”
4. “Whether the District Court erred in denying JMOL of no infringement of the ’371 patent where the claims’ plain language requires a device to repeatedly communicate at least one ‘change-of-value update,’ but the accused products do not repeat the relevant ‘update’?”
5. “Whether the District Court improperly admitted Ollnova’s expert’s damages opinions where he baselessly (1) assumed that the Asserted Patents were equal in value to other patents in Ollnova’s allegedly comparable settlement with another party, and/or (2) determined that ecobee’s sales were 1000x the prior licensee’s sales based on admittedly flawed information? Relatedly, was the damages verdict supported by these unsubstantiated opinions?”
6. “Whether the District Court improperly admitted Ollnova’s expert’s conclusory opinions that the patents’ licensee did not practice the patents, in support of Ollnova’s assertion that it complied with the marking statute and could obtain pre-Complaint damages?”
7. “Whether the District Court improperly refused to ask the jury to decide infringement separately for each of the four unrelated patents, and instead sua sponte combined all of the different infringement issues into one question: whether ‘ANY’ claim of any patent had been infringed?”
8. “Whether the District Court correctly concluded that prejudgment interest cannot accrue before the damages period and outside of the statute of limitations window?”
