Intellectual property partner Chris Burrell spoke with Law360 about the ongoing impact of a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision regarding the use of simplified jury verdict forms in complex patent trials. The precedential ruling in Ollnova Technologies v. Ecobee Technologies vacated an $11.5 million jury win, finding that a district judge's use of simple "yes" or "no" checkboxes left it unclear whether jurors were unanimous in finding each of the asserted patents infringed.
While district court judges frequently streamline verdict forms to avoid confusing juries, the Federal Circuit's decision highlights the critical requirement for legal clarity when multiple distinct patent claims are at stake.
“Most federal court judges are looking to simplify things as best they can for the jury, and if things get listed patent by patent, claim by claim, that certainly starts to increase the complexity of the verdict form and the complexity of the arguments,” Burrell said. “The Federal Circuit did seem to have some sympathies for that, but what they're saying is, 'At the end of the day, if you have a legal right, and we have to have a unanimous decision around that legal right, we need to have enough clarity in the jury verdict to support that.'”
The Federal Circuit addressed only patent-by-patent verdicts, saying in a footnote that it wasn't asked to review claim-by-claim verdicts. Still, the Federal Circuit suggesting it could be open to it is of note to defendants, Burrell said. It's also a lesson in preserving arguments, he added.
“It's always important to preserve your legal questions and be thinking about things not just from the standpoint of what existing precedent or existing district court law says about your jury instructions or verdict forms, but thinking about where the law may correct an existing issue or you might be able to expand an application of the law,” Burrell explained. “This is a really good example of that.”
