IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Infringement and damages findings against LG largely upheld, (Apr 29, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings on infringement and damages, while certain claims were found abstract under § 101.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued a mixed ruling in a patent infringement suit brought by a licensing entity against LG and its affiliates, affirming the eligibility of certain claims and upholding the jury’s findings of infringement and damages on the ground that substantial evidence supported the verdict and the damages model, but vacating the district court’s summary judgment that other claims were patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to an abstract, result-oriented concept without a specific technical implementation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the partial invalidation (Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026)).

Background. Constellation Designs, LLC, the plaintiff-appellee, operates as a licensing entity focused on digital communication technologies, particularly innovations relating to signal transmission efficiency. LG Electronics Inc., the defendant-appellant, is a multinational electronics manufacturer producing consumer devices, including televisions that implement advanced broadcast standards.

The dispute concerned four patents owned by Constellation and relating to digital communication systems using non-uniform constellations to improve transmission efficiency: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,842,761 (the ’761 patent), 10,693,700 (the ’700 patent), 11,019,509 (the ’509 patent), and 11,018,922 (the ’922 patent). These patents broadly addressed techniques for improving data transmission by optimizing signal constellations, arrangements of symbols used to encode digital information, particularly through methods that enhance capacity at lower signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). The claims fell into two categories: “optimization claims,” which described constellations optimized for parallel decode (PD) capacity, and “constellation claims,” which recited specific non-uniform constellation structures.

Constellation filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that LG’s televisions, compliant with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard, infringed multiple claims across the asserted patents. The case proceeded through summary judgment and a jury trial. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Constellation on patent eligibility, holding that all asserted claims were directed to a technical solution to a technical problem. At trial, the jury found that LG willfully infringed the asserted claims and awarded $1.68 million in damages, along with an ongoing royalty. LG moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on non-infringement and damages and sought to exclude the testimony of Constellation’s damages expert, but the district court denied those motions. LG then appealed, challenging eligibility, infringement, and damages.

Eligibility of optimization claims. The Federal Circuit first addressed the eligibility of the “optimization claims” under the two-step framework set out in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At step one, the court held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for PD capacity. The claims, particularly representative claim 17 of the ’761 patent, recited a desired result, improved capacity at lower SNR, without specifying how to achieve that result. The court found this formulation impermissibly broad and analogous to the result-oriented claim invalidated in O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1853).

Relying further on ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court emphasized that claims that merely describe a desired outcome, without reciting a specific technical means, risk preempting all implementations of that idea. The court noted that although the specification described iterative optimization processes, those details were absent from the claims themselves. As such, the claims effectively monopolized the abstract concept of optimization.

At step two of the Alice inquiry, the court found no inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Citing Alice and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), the court explained that the claims relied on conventional communication system components and failed to add anything beyond the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court’s eligibility ruling for the optimization claims and remanded for further proceedings.

Eligibility of constellation claims. In contrast, the court upheld the eligibility of the “constellation claims,” which recited specific, non-uniform constellation configurations. The court distinguished these claims from the abstract optimization claims, noting that they described concrete implementations of a technological solution to a defined problem—improving transmission efficiency by using specific geometrically shaped constellations.

The court found that these claims provided sufficient structure and specificity, including limitations such as unequally spaced constellation points and overlapping point locations. These features reflected a particular technological solution rather than a generalized concept. Because the claims were not directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one, the court did not proceed to step two and affirmed their eligibility.

Infringement. Turning to infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of LG’s JMOL motion. LG argued that Constellation improperly relied on a combination of standard-based evidence and product-specific evidence to establish infringement. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that a patent owner may rely on industry standards to prove that certain claim limitations are met, so long as the standard is sufficiently specific and mandatory, or shown to be implemented by the accused products.

Citing Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the court held that standard-based evidence may be used on a limitation-by-limitation basis. It found no error in the district court’s approach, which allowed Constellation to rely on the ATSC 3.0 standard for certain limitations while using direct evidence for others.

The court further concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of infringement. Testimony established that LG’s televisions complied with the ATSC 3.0 standard and utilized the same constellation techniques covered by the asserted patents. Expert testimony and internal documents corroborated that the accused products implemented the claimed features, including demapping and decoding functions necessary for signal processing.

Damages. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL on damages and its refusal to exclude the testimony of Constellation’s damages expert. LG challenged the expert’s reliance on third-party license agreements, arguing that they were not sufficiently comparable. The court found this challenge procedurally improper under JMOL standards and more appropriately addressed under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

On the merits, the court held that the expert had a sufficient basis for relying on the license agreements. Testimony established both technical and economic comparability, including similarities in technology, product types, and licensing structures. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony and that sufficient evidence supported the damages award.

The Case is No. 24-1822.

Judge: Stoll, K.

Attorneys: Jeffrey B. Wall (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP) for Constellation Designs, LLC. Michael J. McKeon (Fish & Richardson PC) for LG Electronics, Inc.

Companies: Constellation Designs, LLC; LG Electronics, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews TechnologyInternet GCNNews