Our Patent Case Summaries provide a weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al.
No. 2024-1822 (Fed. Cir. (E.D. Tex.) Apr. 28, 2026). Opinion by Stoll, joined by Lourie and Oetken (sitting by designation).
Constellation sued LG for infringement of seven patents relating to communication systems that use non-uniform constellations optimized for capacity to improve performance. The case eventually narrowed to four patents, and the district court granted summary judgment of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for all asserted claims.
The case proceeded to trial where the jury found all asserted claims not invalid and that LG’s accused televisions infringed. The jury also awarded damages and found the infringement to be willful. After trial, the district court denied LG’s motions, including a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no infringement and a motion for JMOL of no damages. LG appealed.
Addressing eligibility, the Federal Circuit divided the claims into two groups: “optimization claims” and “constellation claims.” As to the “optimization claims,” the Federal Circuit vacated the eligibility determination and remanded. The court held under Alice step one that the representative claim “is ineligible because it is an abstract, result-oriented claim directed to all ways of achieving a recited result.” At Alice step two, the Federal Circuit ruled that the “alleged inventive concept is the abstract idea itself,” which is insufficient.
As to the “constellation claims,” in contrast, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of eligibility. The Federal Circuit ruled under Alice step one that the claims are directed to “specific constellations” that cover “a concrete implementation of a technological improvement to solve a technological problem.” Because these claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the court did not reach Alice step two.
On infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of JMOL. LG argued that “in showing that the accused products read on the claims, Constellation improperly relied on evidence related to the [] standard for some claim elements and other evidence of infringement for other elements of the same claim.” The Federal Circuit determined that LG’s arguments turned on the reading and application of the court’s decision in Fujitsu, which held that “if an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product.” The district court interpreted Fujitsu’s reasoning as “also applying on a limitation-by-limitation basis,” and the Federal Circuit agreed. The Federal Circuit rejected LG’s arguments that such a ruling vitiates Fujitsu, and also determined that substantial evidence supported the jury verdict of infringement.
Lastly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of LG’s motion for JMOL of no damages. The court held that LG’s challenge was improperly directed to the admissibility of expert testimony under the guise of JMOL and that sufficient evidence supported the comparability of certain licenses relied on by Constellation’s damages expert.
Federal Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.
No. 2024-1236 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 29, 2026). Opinion by Hughes, joined by Cunningham and Stark.
FedEx sued Roambee for infringement of six patents directed to systems and methods for providing access to information about shipments from sensors attached to items such as packages, shipping containers, or vehicles. Third party Qualcomm then filed IPR petitions challenging four of the patents on obviousness grounds, without listing Roambee as a real party in interest.
FedEx opposed institution of the IPRs and later moved to terminate the proceedings, arguing that Qualcomm’s failure to identify Roambee as a real party in interest precluded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from considering the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The Board denied the motion on the ground that it “should not determine whether an unnamed party is a real party in interest in a proceeding if [that] determination is ‘not necessary to resolve the proceeding.’” The Board then issued a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, and FedEx appealed.
To begin, the Federal Circuit addressed the Board’s real party in interest analysis and its interplay with § 314(d), which specifies that the choice of whether to institute is judicially unreviewable. The court held that “FedEx’s challenges grounded in § 312(a)(2) fall within § 314(d)’s scope and are thus unreviewable” because § 312(a)(2) is “closely tied” to institution. The court explained that “FedEx’s challenge, although framed to be a challenge over the ‘manner’ in which the Board’s review proceeded . . . ultimately still boils down to a challenge over whether there should have been institution at all.”
Turning to the merits of the Board’s obviousness determination, the Board based its determination on its belief that FedEx had not contested Qualcomm’s challenge based on a combination of the “Lau” and “Buford” prior art. But on appeal both parties agreed that FedEx had contested Qualcomm’s challenge, thus warranting vacatur of the Board’s decision. The parties disagreed, however, on whether more was warranted. FedEx sought reversal while Qualcomm argued that there are unresolved factual disputes that cannot be decided on appeal in the first instance. The Federal Circuit agreed with Qualcomm and thus vacated and remanded.