Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Nos. 2022-1904, -1925 (June 16, 2025), vacating a $300,000,000 damages award because the verdict form violated Apple’s Seventh Amendment rights.
Optis sued Apple for infringing several standard-essential patents (SEPs) covering technology central to the LTE standard used in cell tower communications. Optis alleged various Apple cellular-enabled products, including iPhones, iPads, and watches, implemented the LTE standard in an infringing manner. The case went to a jury trial, and both parties requested a verdict form addressing infringement on a patent-by-patent basis. The district court, however, provided the jury with a single infringement question asking if Apple infringed any of the asserted patents. The jury returned a verdict finding the patents not invalid, finding that Apple willfully infringed one or more of the asserted patents, and awarding $506,200,000 in reasonable royalty damages.
In post-trial motions, Apple argued the jury should have heard evidence of Optis’s obligation to license the asserted SEPs on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. The district court agreed and granted Apple’s motion for a new trial on damages. On retrial, the jury issued a damages award of $300,000,000. Apple appealed, arguing among other things that the single infringement question violated its Seventh Amendment right to jury unanimity.
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. First, the Court held that the single infringement question violated Apple’s right to jury unanimity. The Court explained that each asserted patent raises an independent cause of action, and the form erred in requiring an affirmative answer to the infringement question even if the jurors did not all agree on which of the asserted patents were infringed. Next, for the sake of efficiency, the Court addressed some of Apple’s additional arguments so that all errors could be addressed on remand. Specifically, the Court reversed the district court’s decision on summary judgment that that certain claims were not directed to an abstract idea and remanded for consideration of Step 2 of the Alice test. The Court also reversed the district court’s holding on whether an element in one of the asserted claims invoked § 112 ¶ 6, but it affirmed the district court’s construction of an element of a different claim. Finally, the Court reversed the district court’s decision to admit evidence of a prior Apple settlement agreement and expert testimony concerning the same.
This blog post was co-authored by Rachel Scobie & Grace Neumann.
