IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: $185 million verdict against Norton vacated; cybersecurity patents deemed abstract and sanctions order reversed, (Mar 12, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

Columbia University’s virus-detection patents were directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one; the district court erred in awarding damages for foreign software sales.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a $185 million jury verdict and related enhanced damages and attorney fees awards obtained by The Trustees of Columbia University against cybersecurity software provider Gen Digital Inc., formerly known as Symantec Corporation. The appellate court held that the asserted patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of comparing program behavior against a model to detect anomalies and remanded the case for further proceedings under step two of the Alice framework. The court also concluded that the district court improperly allowed damages based on foreign software sales and reversed a related civil contempt sanction imposed on Norton’s counsel, which had contributed to the enhancement of damages and fees (Trustees Of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc. and Trustees Of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc. (order involving contempt finding), Nos. 2024-1243 and 2024-1244 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellee, The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, is a research university that develops and licenses technologies originating from its faculty research. The defendant/appellant, Gen Digital Inc., markets consumer cybersecurity products under the Norton brand and distributes antivirus and security software worldwide. The dispute arose from Columbia’s allegations that Norton’s antivirus software infringed its research-based patents related to detecting anomalous program execution.

The litigation involved U.S. Patent No. 8,601,322 (the ’322 patent) and 8,074,115 (the ’115 patent), both directed to methods, systems, and computer-readable media for detecting anomalous program executions. The patents describe a technique in which an emulator executes part of a computer program and compares the program’s function calls against a model of expected behavior created from multiple computers. The litigation also included a related inventorship dispute concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,549,643 (the ’643 patent), which was owned by Norton but alleged by Columbia to have been invented, at least in part, by Columbia professors.

Columbia filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2013, alleging that Norton’s SONAR/BASH antivirus technology infringed the ’322 and ’115 patents. Columbia also sought correction of inventorship for the ’643 patent, contending that two Columbia professors were the true inventors or joint inventors of that patent.

Following claim construction proceedings and earlier appeals, the case proceeded to trial on a limited set of claims that survived inter partes review and prior litigation. A jury found that Norton had willfully infringed claims 2, 11, and 27 of the ’322 patent and claim 2 of the ’115 patent and awarded Columbia $185,112,727 in damages. The damages calculation included royalties on Norton’s foreign sales of antivirus software. The district court denied Norton’s motions for judgment as a matter of law on infringement, willfulness, and damages. It also enhanced damages and awarded attorney fees, in part relying on a civil contempt sanction imposed on Norton’s litigation counsel for refusing to disclose communications with a former Norton employee during discovery.

Norton appealed the infringement judgment, damages award, and sanctions rulings to the Federal Circuit. In a companion appeal, Norton’s counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, challenged the contempt finding arising from the district court’s disclosure order.

Patent eligibility. The Federal Circuit first addressed whether the asserted claims were patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Applying the two-step framework established in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the appellate court held that the district court erred in concluding at step one that the claims were not abstract.

According to the appellate court, the claims were directed to the abstract concept of comparing data against a model to identify anomalies, a principle long used in virus detection and other analytical contexts. The court emphasized that the claimed improvement—creating models using multiple computers—amounted only to a “divide-and-conquer” approach and did not constitute a technological improvement in computer functionality.

The court rejected Columbia’s reliance on technical descriptions in the specification that suggested improvements such as selective emulation or diversified anomaly-detection models. The claim language itself did not require those purported improvements and therefore could not supply the technological advance necessary to avoid abstraction. Citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court reiterated that virus-scanning methods that merely compare behavior against a model generally constitute abstract ideas.

However, the Federal Circuit declined to resolve step two of the Alice inquiry itself. It held that factual disputes existed regarding whether the claimed “model of function calls” feature was conventional and therefore remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the claims contained an inventive concept sufficient to render them patent-eligible.

Claim construction and infringement. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s construction of the claim term “emulator.” Norton had argued that the term required software that simulated a computer system. The Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that the patent specification did not restrict the term to simulation-based implementations.

The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Norton’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on infringement. Evidence presented at trial allowed a reasonable jury to conclude that Norton’s SONAR/BASH software, operating together with the computer environment, performed the functions of the claimed emulator and executed programs in the manner described by the patents.

Willfulness. The Federal Circuit likewise upheld the jury’s finding of willful infringement. Evidence showed that Norton had been aware of the technology underlying the patents through earlier interactions with Columbia researchers and potential licensing discussions. The court noted that knowledge of a pending patent application can support a willfulness finding once the patent issues, citing Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., 876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Foreign sales damages. The appellate court, however, held that the district court erred in allowing damages based on Norton’s foreign software sales. Relying on Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), the court emphasized that software transmitted from the United States is not an infringing product until it is embodied in a specific copy installed on a computer. Because the copies sold to foreign customers were created and installed outside the United States, they could not constitute domestically made or distributed infringing products.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit ruled that the foreign sales component of the damages award was legally invalid and must be eliminated if the patents ultimately survive the eligibility challenge on remand.

Contempt order and sanctions. In the companion appeal, the Federal Circuit also reversed the district court’s civil contempt finding against Norton’s counsel. The district court had ordered the firm to disclose communications with former Norton employee Marc Dacier based on an alleged conflict of interest in the firm’s representation. When the firm refused on grounds of attorney-client privilege, the court imposed a contempt sanction and instructed the jury to draw an adverse inference regarding litigation misconduct.

The Federal Circuit held that the disclosure order was invalid because a conflict of interest does not automatically terminate the attorney-client privilege. Communications between Dacier and counsel therefore remained privileged, and the refusal to disclose them could not support a contempt finding.

Because the district court relied heavily on that contempt finding when enhancing damages and awarding attorney fees, the Federal Circuit vacated those awards and directed the district court to reconsider them if the patents are ultimately deemed eligible.

Outcome. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that the asserted claims were not abstract under Alice step one, vacated the $185 million damages judgment and related enhanced damages and fee awards, and remanded the case for further proceedings on patent eligibility and damages consistent with its opinion.

The Cases are No. 2024-1243 and No. 2024-1244.

Judge: Dyk, T.

Attorneys: Dustin Guzior (Sullivan & Cromwell LLP) for The Trustees of Columbia University In The City of New York,. Douglas Ethan Lumish (Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP) for Gen Digital Inc., f/k/a Symantec Corp., f/k/a Nortonlifelock, Inc.

Companies: Gen Digital Inc., f/k/a Symantec Corp., f/k/a Nortonlifelock, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews