The Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed the requirement that, where multiple patents are asserted, the jury must be asked to answer the infringement question on a patent-by-patent basis. In Ollnova Techs. Ltd. v. ecobee Techs. ULC, Appeal Nos. 2025-1045, -1046 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2026), the court found fault with the district court’s verdict form, which simply asked only one question regarding infringement, specifically whether the defendant had infringed “any” of the asserted claims of the asserted patents.
Procedural Background
The Ollnova appeal arrived at the Federal Circuit after a trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In relevant part, both sides had proposed that the jury verdict include at least one separate question for each asserted patent. The plaintiff proposed only one question per patent, and the defendant proposed a separate question for each asserted claim. The district court nevertheless adopted a verdict form with only a single question: “Did Ollnova, the Plaintiff, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ecobee, the Defendant, infringed ANY of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents?” The jury returned a verdict that, in relevant part, answered this question in the affirmative.
The Federal Circuit Decision
The Federal Circuit found that the jury verdict was “materially identical” to that in a case from last year—Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., 139 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—in which the court articulated the requirement for infringement determinations to be indicated patent-by-patent. In Optis, the objectionable verdict form asked, “Did [plaintiff] prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [defendant] infringed ANY of the [a]sserted [c]laims?” The high degree of similarity between the verdict form in Optis and that at issue on appeal was essentially the end of the matter.
The Federal Circuit had already established in Optis that an infringement question covering multiple patents violates a defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to a unanimous verdict. Specifically, it allows a jury to answer “Yes” even though not all jurors believe that the defendant infringed any one patent. For example, some jurors may believe that one patent was infringed but not others, while the remaining jurors may believe that only another patent was infringed.
The Federal Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the jury verdict became acceptable when viewed alongside the jury instructions. Those instructions, the plaintiff argued, made clear the requirement of unanimity. The Federal Circuit noted that the same argument was raised in Optis, and responded that “the jury could have followed those instructions yet understood that it only needed to be unanimous as to the question presented on the verdict form—whether defendant infringed ‘ANY’ of the asserted claims—not whether defendant infringed the same patent.”
Accordingly, just as it had done in Optis, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court abused its discretion in adopting the single-infringement-question verdict form. The court vacated the infringement judgment and remanded.
The Federal Circuit did not—because it was not asked to—resolve whether a proper verdict form needs to break out each patent claim separately. Instead, it only raised the issue in a footnote, stating that “[w]e need not reach the issue . . . because ecobee [defendant] argues only that the verdict form should have broken up the infringement question on a patent-by-patent basis.” This is consistent with the Optis case, in which the Federal Circuit volunteered that the parties had not presented it with that issue. Accordingly, it remains open whether a verdict form is sufficient if it asks only one infringement question per patent when multiple claims per patent are asserted.
Conclusion
Under Ollnova, accused infringers should ensure that they propose verdict forms that seek infringement determinations on at least a patent-by-patent basis (and potentially a claim-by-claim basis). A verdict form with a single infringement question is not likely to pass scrutiny absent waiver.