Introduction
In Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., Case No. 2024-1822, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s denial of LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, holding that Constellation could prove infringement by relying on industry-standard evidence for some claim limitations and product-specific evidence for others within the same claim. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s infringement verdict against LG’s ATSC 3.0-compatible televisions.
Background
Constellation Designs, LLC sued LG Electronics Inc. and its affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas for willful infringement of patents related to non-uniform signal constellations used in digital communication systems. At trial, Constellation accused LG televisions that were compatible with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard, particularly protocol A/322, of infringing the asserted patents. After the jury found infringement, LG moved for JMOL of non-infringement, arguing that Constellation had improperly mixed two different proof models: standards-based evidence for some claim elements and direct product evidence for others.
LG’s argued that under Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010), a patentee may rely on a standard to prove infringement only when the standard satisfies every limitation of the asserted claim, not merely a subset of limitations. Constellation countered that nothing in Fujitsu or its progeny prohibits a patent owner from relying on standard-compliance evidence for some limitations while using direct product evidence for others.
The district court rejected LG’s argument and agreed with Constellation, holding that nothing prevents a plaintiff from using a standard-based read for some limitations and a direct comparison to the accused products for other limitations of the same claim, so long as the evidentiary showing is sufficient. Further, the district court found substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict and denied LG’s JMOL.
Federal Circuit Analysis
The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s reading of Fujitsu and held that its logic can apply on a limitation-by-limitation basis rather than only at the full-claim level. According to the court, when a standard is (1) sufficiently specific and (2) mandatory, or if optional, shown to be implemented in the accused product, a patentee may use the standard to prove satisfaction of that particular limitation, while relying on separate product evidence for the remaining limitations.
The court gave two reasons for agreeing with the district court. First, it emphasized efficiency: if a group of products practices the same standard, it would waste judicial resources to separately re-prove the same limitation product by product when the standard itself establishes that limitation. Second, the same safeguards identified in Fujitsu still apply in this narrower setting, namely that the relevant portion of the standard must be specific enough to show that practicing it necessarily satisfies the limitation, and that the relevant provision must be mandatory or affirmatively implemented if optional. The Federal Circuit found no textual or logical basis in Fujitsu or its progeny that would restrict those principles to whole-claim analysis. LG’s argument that this approach “vitiate[d] Fujitsu” was rejected.
The Federal Circuit also held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The court noted that LG’s own technical expert acknowledged the accused televisions were ATSC 3.0-compatible. Constellation’s expert testified based on physical testing, source code, ATSC documents, and LG’s internal records that all accused televisions could receive ATSC 3.0 signals using the same patented constellations embedded in the standard. LG’s own corporate representative confirmed that LG chips implement the A/322 protocol, which the FCC has mandated for ATSC 3.0 television receivers. Given this record, the Federal Circuit concluded substantial evidence supported the infringement verdict.
Conclusion
The Federal Circuit has now made clear that standard-based infringement proof is not an all-or-nothing exercise. In the right case, a patentee may use an industry standard to establish some limitations and product-specific evidence to establish others, provided the Fujitsu requirements are satisfied for each standard-based limitation.