Ollnova Technologies Ltd. v. Ecobee Technologies Ulc, Dba Ecobee

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC, DBA ECOBEE,
Defendant-Cross-Appellant
______________________
2025-1045, 2025-1046
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:22-cv-00072-JRG, Judge
J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
Decided: June 4, 2026
______________________
L UCAS M. WALKER , MoloLamken LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
ROBERT A UCHTER , Auchter PLLC, Washington, DC; BRETT
E. COOPER, BC Law Group, PC, New York, NY.
MICHAEL P. SANDONATO, Venable LLP, Los Angeles,
CA, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also repre-
sented by MANNY CAIXEIRO; J OSHUA D ANIEL CALABRO, New
York, NY; J ASON M. D ORSKY , MEGAN S. WOODWORTH ,
Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 1 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 2
Before CHEN, CUNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Ollnova Technologies Ltd. (Ollnova) sued ecobee Tech-
nologies ULC d/b/a ecobee (ecobee) for patent infringement
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas. Ollnova asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,860,495
(’495 patent), 8,264,371 (’371 patent), 7,746,887 (’887 pa-
tent), and 8,224,282 (’282 patent) (collectively, the Asserted
Patents). The Asserted Patents are directed to improve-
ments in wireless communications used in building auto-
mation systems. Ollnova contends that ecobee’s smart
thermostat products infringe the Asserted Patents.
The jury returned a verdict that (i) found ecobee in-
fringed at least one of the Asserted Patents (but without
identifying which patent or patents); (ii) found the ’495 pa-
tent’s asserted claims were not directed only to “well-un-
derstood, routine, and conventional” technology; (iii) found
the ’282 patent’s asserted claims were invalid; and (iv)
awarded Ollnova lump sum damages of $11.5 million cov-
ering the life of the patents.
ecobee appeals the district court’s (1) denial of ecobee’s
motion for a new trial based on the allegedly flawed jury
instruction and verdict form as to ecobee’s challenge to the
’495 patent’s validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (2) denial of
ecobee’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the
’495 patent’s asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101; (3) denial of ecobee’s motions to dismiss under 35
U.S.C. § 101 for the ’887 and ’371 patents; (4) denial of
ecobee’s motion for judgment as a matter of law concerning
non-infringement of the ’371 patent; (5) denial of ecobee’s
motion for a new trial due to the verdict form’s inclusion of
a single question covering infringement for all the Asserted
Patents; and (6) denial of ecobee’s Daubert motions to ex-
clude expert testimony related to damages and its marking
defense. Ollnova appeals the district court’s order that
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 2 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 3
prejudgment interest is limited to the time period allowed
under 35 U.S.C. § 286.
For the reasons below, we vacate the infringement and
damages judgments and remand for proceedings consistent
with this opinion, including a new trial on infringement
and damages. We vacate and remand for further proceed-
ings under Alice step two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis as
to the ’495 patent. We affirm the district court’s determi-
nations that the asserted claims of the ’887 and ’371 pa-
tents are not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. We also affirm the district court’s denial of ecobee’s
motion for judgment as a matter of law concerning non-in-
fringement of the ’371 patent. Because we vacate the dam-
ages judgment, we do not reach ecobee’s remaining
arguments regarding its Daubert motions on damages and
marking or Ollnova’s arguments regarding prejudgment
interest.
BACKGROUND
I. Technological Background
This dispute relates to patents directed to improve-
ments in a building automation system (BAS). According
to the patent specifications, a BAS is an integrated system
of components that automates a process control within a
building or facility. See, e.g., ’887 patent, col. 1 ll. 6–19.
The components include, for example, controllers, sensors,
alarms, and air handling units configured to manage heat-
ing, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC), air quality, and
fire prevention throughout the individual floors of a build-
ing. Id. col. 1 ll. 11–17. The components may operate to-
gether to detect events, sense conditions, respond to
detected events or changes in conditions, and/or control op-
eration of connected devices. Id. col. 1 ll. 20–22.
For example, a temperature sensor can detect a tem-
perature reading and communicate that data to a control-
ler. Id. col. 1 ll. 20–32. The controller evaluates the
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 3 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 3 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 4
reading to determine whether a responsive control action
is needed, such as by comparing the reported temperature
to a predetermined limit (e.g., 75°F). Id. When the thresh-
old is met, the controller broadcasts control signals to an
actuator to adjust airflow in the room to lower the temper-
ature. Id.
Traditionally, BAS components used wired communi-
cations, which created substantial installation costs and
expensive maintenance. ’495 patent, col. 1 ll. 38–52. To
reduce these costs, the industry moved toward using wire-
less networks to connect BAS components. Id. col. 1 ll. 53–
54.
Wireless networks, however, introduced their own
technical challenges. Limited bandwidth can constrain the
number of devices connected to the system and the amount
of information communicated over the system. ’887 patent,
col. 1 ll. 34–46. Continuous monitoring and broadcasting
by a building’s sensors also consumes large amounts of
power. Id. Moreover, wireless communication systems are
susceptible to communication errors and data loss. See
’371 patent, col. 8 ll. 10–25.
The Asserted Patents address these technical problems
by taking various steps to reduce power usage and band-
width use and also implement redundancy mechanisms to
mitigate data loss in the event of communications failures.
The ’495 patent, titled “Wireless Building Control Ar-
chitecture,” issued on December 28, 2010. It describes a
BAS that utilizes two wireless networks having different
associated protocols. See ’495 patent, col. 4 l. 60 – col. 5 l.
30. The patent further describes that BAS systems may be
implemented using multiple tiers or architectural levels.
Id. col. 1 ll. 9–15. For example, a floor-level network may
provide control for a particular floor of a building and may
adjust heating or cooling to regulate temperature within
rooms on that floor. Id. col. 1 ll. 14–23. A building-level
network integrates multiple floor-levels to provide
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 4 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 4 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 5
coordinated control across zones within a building and may
adjust centralized systems such as pumps or fans. Id. col.
1 ll. 24–28.
While prior-art systems may have used a single wire-
less network to connect the floor-level and building-level
functions, the ’495 patent describes using two wireless net-
works having different associated protocols (e.g., WiFi and
Bluetooth). The patent further describes two modes of op-
eration: (1) a first mode where a first wireless network con-
trols building components “free of communications with
the second wireless network” and in response to sensors on
the first wireless network (e.g., floor-level control); and (2)
a second mode where the first wireless network controls
building components in response to data from the second
wireless network (e.g., building-level coordination). See id.
at claim 1; id. col. 2 ll. 18–36, 53–64.
This architecture provides redundancy by providing for
two separate wireless networks using different protocols,
ensuring that control of building components is maintained
if one network fails. For example, in normal operation, a
first network (e.g., floor level) may control building compo-
nents using Bluetooth in coordination with input from a
second network (e.g., building level) via WiFi. Id. col. 2 ll.
18–30. In the event of a WiFi outage, the first network may
continue to operate using local control alone. Id. col. 10 ll.
36–39. In this manner, the first network benefits from co-
ordination with information from the second network dur-
ing normal operation, while remaining capable of
continuing local operation when second network communi-
cations are unavailable. See id. col. 4 ll. 42–48.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A control system for wireless building automa-
tion control, the control system comprising:
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 5 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 5 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 6
a first wireless network in a building hav-
ing first wireless communications protocol;
and
a second wireless network in the building
having a second wireless communications
protocol, the first wireless communications
protocol different than the second wireless
communications protocol;
wherein the first wireless network is oper-
able to control, free of communications with
the second wireless network, building com-
ponents in response to sensors operable
within the first wireless network, and
wherein the first wireless network is also
operable to control the building compo-
nents in response to data from the second
wireless network.
Id. at claim 1.
The ’887 patent, titled “Dynamic Value Reporting for
Wireless Automated Systems,” issued on June 29, 2010. It
addresses problems of limited bandwidth, signal interfer-
ence, and power usage through an improved wireless auto-
mation device that curtails sensor monitoring while also
minimizing transmissions across the wireless network.
’887 patent, col. 1 ll. 34–50.
According to the patent, unlike conventional systems
that rely on continuous monitoring and transmission, the
claimed invention operates according to defined polling and
transmission intervals. Id. A controller polls a sensor only
within a polling interval to obtain a reading of a sensed
condition. Id. col. 1 ll. 63–66; id. col. 9 ll. 23–50. During
that polling period, the controller determines if the sensed
condition falls outside of a predetermined range. Id. col. 9
ll. 51–53; id. col. 10 ll. 12–30.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 6 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 6 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 7
Based on that determination, the controller selectively
controls a transceiver to transmit data during a period of a
transmission interval, and when the sensed condition falls
outside the predetermined range. Id. col. 10 l. 57 – col. 11
l. 3. If the condition remains within the range, the proces-
sor suspends transmission. Id. col. 14 l. 67 – col. 15 l. 4.
Cutting back on a device’s network traffic in this way ena-
bles more devices to operate on the same wireless network.
Id. col. 1 ll. 56–62.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A wireless automation device, comprising:
a transceiver operable to wirelessly communi-
cate packets of information over a wireless net-
work;
a sensor operable to generate a [sic] indicator
for a sensed condition;
a controller configured to poll the sensor at a
polling interval to read the indicator during a
current period of the polling interval and to se-
lectively operate the transceiver to communi-
cate information associated reading of the
indicator; and
a memory, the controller storing a reading of
the indicator during the current period in the
memory, where the memory stores at least one
prior reading of the indicator, the prior reading
of the indicator made during a prior period of
the polling interval,
wherein the transceiver is configured to trans-
mit a most recent reading of the indicator
stored in the memory during a period of a
transmission interval in response to detecting
a change in the sensed condition outside a pre-
determined range and wherein transmission of
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 7 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 7 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 8
the most recent reading of the indicator stored
in the memory during the period of the trans-
mission interval is suspended in response to
detecting a change in the sensed condition
within the predetermined range.
Id. at claim 1.
The ’371 patent, titled “Method and Device for Com-
municating Change-of-Value Information in a Building Au-
tomation System,” issued on September 11, 2012. It
describes techniques for wirelessly communicating
“change-of-value” (COV) information within a BAS, where
COV information indicates whether any monitored values
have changed beyond a predetermined reporting limit (e.g.,
a temperature set point). See ’371 patent, col. 2 ll. 18–25;
id. col. 6 ll. 44–49. In such systems, communication of COV
information between distributed automation components
can be constrained by limited wireless bandwidth and may
be vulnerable to data loss during communications failure.
See id. col. 7 ll. 62–65; id. col. 8 ll. 10–25.
The ’371 patent describes two communication ap-
proaches for transmitting COV information between pe-
ripheral and centralized automation components. See id.
col. 6 l. 20 – col. 7 l. 65. In a polling-based approach, a
centralized automation component transmits COV request
messages to one or more peripheral components (e.g., a
sensor). Id. col. 6 ll. 36–44. Each peripheral component
then evaluates whether a change of value has occurred and
responds to the centralized automation component with an
acknowledgment indicating whether relevant changes are
present. Id. col. 6 ll. 44–61.
In contrast, the patent also describes a push-based ap-
proach in which peripheral components monitor their own
inputs and outputs to determine whether a value has
changed beyond a predefined threshold. Id. col. 7 ll. 11–27.
When such a change occurs, the peripheral device gener-
ates a “Push COV message” that may include other queued
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 8 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 8 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 9
COV values and transmits the message to the centralized
automation component. Id. col. 7 ll. 27–30. The centralized
automation component then processes the received COV
values and may report those updated values to another de-
vice. Id. col. 7 ll. 39–42.
In this push configuration, COV messages are aggre-
gated into a “COV update” at peripheral components and
transmitted to a centralized component, which may further
distribute the information within the system. Id. col. 7 ll.
58–65. The patent explains that this approach can reduce
wireless bandwidth usage and end-to-end delays by avoid-
ing repeated polling of peripheral devices that may not
have updated values, and, instead, transmitting aggre-
gated updates to a centralized component only when
changes are detected. Id.
The ’371 patent also describes techniques for mitigat-
ing communications failure. Id. col. 8 ll. 10–25. In partic-
ular, to ensure that a communication attempt is successful,
a communication transmission may be repeated a prede-
termined number of times or until an acknowledgment
message is returned. Id. col. 8 ll. 13–19; id. at claim 13. In
addition, “the COV-related messages may still be aggre-
gated and stored pending the reestablishment of communi-
cations.” Id. col. 8 ll. 22–25.
Claim 13 is representative and reproduced below:1
13. An automation component configured for wire-
less communication within a building automation
system, the automation component comprising:
1 Although claim 13 was withdrawn before trial, the
district court used it as the representative claim in its Sec-
tion 101 analysis, and neither party disputes that it is rep-
resentative for purposes of evaluating patent eligibility for
the asserted claims of the ’371 patent. See J.A. 134–35.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 9 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 9 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 10
a wireless communications component;
a processor in communication with the
wireless communications component;
a memory in communication with the pro-
cessor, the memory configured to store
computer readable instructions which are
executable by the processor;
wherein the computer readable instruc-
tions are programmed to:
receive at least one change-of-value update
via the wireless communications compo-
nent, wherein the change-of-value update
includes a plurality of change-of-value mes-
sages received from a plurality of devices;
storing the at least one change-of-value up-
date corresponding to at least one wireless
device; and
communicate the at least one change-of-
value update in response to a polling re-
quest and repeat the at least one change-
of-value update at regular intervals accord-
ing to a schedule or until a change-of value
acknowledgment is received.
Id. at claim 13.
By reciting the receipt of a “change-of-value update”
that “includes a plurality of change-of-value messages re-
ceived from a plurality of devices,” claim 13 corresponds to
the specification’s description of aggregating COV mes-
sages from peripheral devices and then transmitting those
aggregated messages to a centralized automation compo-
nent. See id. at claim 13; id. col. 7 ll. 11–30. Consistent
with that disclosure, the claimed “automation component”
corresponds to a centralized component that receives ag-
gregated COV information from multiple devices, as
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 10 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 10 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 11
described in the push-based approach of the specification.
Id. col. 7. ll. 58–62.
The claim also describes the claimed “automation com-
ponent” repeating its communication of the change-of-
value update at regular intervals or until acknowledgment,
which the specification explains is a technique that ad-
dresses “communications failure” that can occur in the
wireless network of the BAS. See id. col. 8 ll. 10–25. Thus,
claim 13 reflects a combination of the push-based aggrega-
tion of COV data and the repeated techniques disclosed in
the specification.
II. Procedural Background
On March 8, 2022, Ollnova sued ecobee for infringe-
ment of the Asserted Patents2 in the Eastern District of
Texas. ecobee moved to dismiss on the ground that each
Asserted Patent claims ineligible subject matter under Sec-
tion 101. The district court denied ecobee’s motion, holding
(1) the ’495 patent’s claims were directed to the abstract
idea of “controlling generic ‘components’ using information
from two separate sources (i.e., information from two sepa-
rate networks),” but “factual disputes” existed concerning
Alice step two, J.A. 132–33; and (2) the remaining patents
were eligible because they satisfied Alice step one.
The district court then held a jury trial on invalidity,
infringement, and damages. Although the parties jointly
proposed a verdict form requiring a separate response for
each of the Asserted Patents as to infringement liability,
J.A. 8079, the district court on its own included only a sin-
gle infringement question covering all Asserted Patents:
2 The asserted claims at trial consisted of claims 1,
11, 12, and 20 of the ’887 patent; claims 1 and 2 of the ’495
patent; claims 1, 3, 6, and 21 of the ’282 patent; and claims
1, 5, and 17 of the ’371 patent (collectively, the Asserted
Claims).
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 11 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 11 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 12
“Did Ollnova, the Plaintiff, prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that ecobee, the Defendant, infringed ANY of the
Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents?” J.A. 8388. By
contrast, the invalidity question on the verdict form was
broken up on a patent-by-patent, claim-by-claim basis.
J.A. 8390.
The district court also overruled ecobee’s objection to
the court’s draft final jury instruction and verdict form on
the ’495 patent’s eligibility. The instruction and form did
not inform the jury that the claims were directed to an ab-
stract idea nor instruct the jury that the abstract idea itself
could not supply the inventive concept under Alice step
two.
The district court thus instructed the jury:
To succeed on its claims for patent ineligibility,
ecobee must establish two things. The first is
whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
That issue is one for the Court to decide and not the
jury. It is not something you will have to decide in
this case.
However, you, the jury, will decide the second ques-
tion related to patent eligibility. Specifically, and
in that regard, ecobee must show that the claims in-
volve nothing more than the performance of activi-
ties which a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered well-understood, routine,
and conventional at the time the patent application
was filed. You, the jury, will determine this issue.
J.A. 2139, [1240:4–15] (emphasis added).
Likewise, the question on the verdict form regarding
subject matter eligibility of the ’495 patent claims asked:
Did ecobee prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the limitations of the asserted claims of the
’495 Patent, when taken individually or when
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 12 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 12 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 13
taken as an ordered combination, involve only tech-
nology which a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have considered to be well-understood, rou-
tine, and conventional as of April 9, 2004?
J.A. 8389.
The jury returned a verdict that: (i) ecobee infringed
at least one of the Asserted Patents (without any oppor-
tunity to identify which patent(s) or which patent claim(s));
(ii) the ’495 patent’s asserted claims were not directed only
to “well-understood, routine, and conventional” technology;
(iii) the ’282 patent’s asserted claims were invalid; and (iv)
Ollnova was entitled to lump sum damages of $11.5 mil-
lion. J.A. 8385–93. The district court entered final judg-
ment for Ollnova, J.A. 1–3, and denied ecobee’s post-
judgment motions. See Ollnova Techs. Ltd. v. ecobee Techs.
ULC, No. 2:22-CV-00072-JRG, 2024 WL 4107484, at *1
(E.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2024); Ollnova Techs. Ltd. v. ecobee
Techs. ULC, No. 2:22-CV-00072-JRG, 2024 WL 4107482, at
*1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2024); J.A. 4–47.
Both sides timely appealed. We have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
On appeal, ecobee raises several issues: (1) whether
the single question on the verdict form covering all the As-
serted Patents was improper; (2) whether the jury instruc-
tion and verdict form on the ’495 patent’s ineligibility
under § 101 erroneously failed to identify the abstract idea
and instruct the jury that it could not rely on the abstract
idea itself to find that the claims were not well-understood,
routine, or conventional; (3) whether ecobee is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law that the ’495 patent’s asserted
claims are not patent eligible under § 101; (4) whether the
asserted claims of the ’371 and ’887 patents are patent in-
eligible under § 101; (5) whether a jury could have found
that ecobee’s products infringe claims of the ’371 patent;
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 13 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 13 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 14
and (6) whether the district court erred in admitting cer-
tain expert opinions regarding damages and marking. For
its part, Ollnova raises the single issue of whether the dis-
trict court properly limited the accrual of prejudgment in-
terest for a lump sum reasonable royalty to the time period
allowed under 35 U.S.C. § 286.
We address the issues relating to the verdict form, jury
instructions, invalidity, and infringement in turn. Because
we vacate the infringement verdict upon which the dam-
ages award is based, we also vacate the damages award
and need not reach the issues raised by ecobee and Ollnova
regarding damages, marking, or prejudgment interest.
I
We first address ecobee’s challenges to the verdict form
and jury instructions. On issues of patent law, we apply
Federal Circuit law to review the legal sufficiency of jury
instructions without deference to the district court. Eko
Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 946
F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). A party
challenging jury instructions must generally “prove the
jury instructions read in their entirety were incorrect or in-
complete as given.” Id. (citation omitted). To the extent
jury instructions or the verdict form do not implicate an
issue of patent law, they are reviewed for abuse of discre-
tion under the law of the regional circuit (here, the Fifth
Circuit). Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., 139 F.4th
1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (citing R.R. Dynamics, Inc. v.
A. Stucki Co., 727 F.2d 1506, 1515 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
A
ecobee argues that the verdict form improperly com-
bined all Asserted Patents into a single infringement ques-
tion and permitted the jury to find liability without
unanimous agreement that ecobee infringed any particular
claim of any patent. We agree.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 14 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 14 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 15
This Court’s decision in Optis Cellular Technology,
LLC v. Apple Inc. held that a materially identical verdict
form constituted an abuse of discretion. 139 F.4th at 1374–
76. We vacated the infringement judgment, explaining
that, where multiple patents are asserted as distinct
causes of action, a single combined infringement question
created an unacceptable risk of a non-unanimous general
verdict. Id. The verdict form permitted a finding of in-
fringement without requiring juror agreement as to which
patent was infringed—so long as each juror believed that
some claim of some patent was infringed, he or she could
enter a finding of infringement, even if various jurors be-
lieved that different asserted patents were infringed. Id.
That structure erroneously required a “Yes” answer to the
question of whether defendant infringed “ANY” of the as-
serted claims even in a situation where all jurors did not
agree that the same patent was being infringed. Id. Such
a result violated the defendant’s right to a unanimous ver-
dict on each legal claim against it as it related to infringe-
ment. Id. at 1374. (“‘Unanimity in jury verdicts is required
where,’ as here, the ‘Seventh Amendment[] appl[ies].’”
(quoting Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740, 748
(1948))). Accordingly, we held that to ensure a unanimous
verdict, “the verdict form needed to have included, at the
very least, separate infringement questions for each as-
serted patent.” Id. at 1375.
Optis rejected the same arguments raised by Ollnova
here. In Optis, as here, the patent owner argued that the
unanimity issue was remedied by jury instructions requir-
ing unanimity and assessing infringement on a claim-by-
claim basis. Id. at 1375; see Appellant Resp. Br. 60. We
disagreed, explaining that the jury could have followed
those instructions yet understood that it only needed to be
unanimous as to the question presented on the verdict
form—whether defendant infringed “ANY” of the asserted
claims—not whether defendant infringed the same patent.
Optis, 139 F.4th at 1376. We further explained that
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 15 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 15 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 16
parsing the damages verdict in an effort to demonstrate
unanimity does not establish that the jury actually agreed
that the same patent was infringed. Id.; see Appellant
Resp. Br. 60.
We also reject Ollnova’s contention that ecobee for-
feited its unanimity argument. See Appellant Resp. Br. 60.
On this record, ecobee preserved the issue. ecobee objected
that, as written, the verdict form was “incomplete in view
of . . . evidence re[quiring] patent-by-patent analysis” and
expressly requested that the infringement question “list
each patent separately.” J.A. 2111, [1212:11–23]. Alt-
hough it did not explicitly use the term “unanimity,” its
timely-made objection specifically argued that the verdict
form was incomplete and would confuse the jury by group-
ing all four Asserted Patents into a single question. Id.
Moreover, the district court addressed the unanimity issue
on the merits, which preserves the issue for appeal.
Ollnova Techs., 2024 WL 4107484, at *5; see Optis, 139
F.4th at 1374 n.5 (first citing LaserDynamics, Inc. v.
Quanta Comput., Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 70–71 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
and then citing Garriott v. NCsoft Corp., 661 F.3d 243, 249
(5th Cir. 2011)).
For the foregoing reasons, we see no basis to depart
from Optis, and conclude that the district court here like-
wise abused its discretion by submitting a single infringe-
ment question to the jury covering all the Asserted Patents.
The infringement judgment is therefore vacated.3
3 We need not reach the issue of whether the verdict
form needed to be broken out on a claim-by-claim basis be-
cause ecobee argues only that the verdict form should have
broken up the infringement question on a patent-by-patent
basis as the parties jointly proposed to the district court.
See Cross-Appellant Br. 65–69; Optis, 139 F.4th at 1375
n.6.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 16 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 16 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 17
Because a new trial on infringement is required, we
must also vacate the damages judgment awarding Ollnova
$11.5 million. Absent a finding of infringement at a new
trial, there is no basis for an award of damages.
B
Next, we address ecobee’s argument that the jury in-
structions and verdict form on the ’495 patent’s eligibility
were erroneous. We agree.
Section 101 defines patent-eligible subject matter as
“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phe-
nomena, and abstract ideas, however, are not patentable.
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 70 (2012). Such categories of subject matter are
excluded from patent-eligibility because they represent
“the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Ass’n
for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
To determine whether an invention claims ineligible
subject matter, we engage in a two-step process established
by the Supreme Court in Alice. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014). At Alice step one,
we “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. At Alice step two,
we consider “the elements of each claim both individually
and as an ordered combination to determine whether the
additional elements transform the nature of the claim into
a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 217 (cleaned up). Such
additional elements, to “constitute an inventive concept,”
“must be more than well-understood, routine, conventional
activity.” Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th
698, 704 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (cleaned up) (citation omitted).
Here, the district court held at step one that the ’495
patent’s claims were directed to the abstract idea of
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 17 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 17 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 18
“controlling generic ‘components’ using information from
two separate sources (i.e., information from two separate
networks).”4 J.A. 129–134. The district court further con-
cluded that “factual disputes” concerning Alice step two
precluded summary judgment. J.A. 82; 133–34.
However, neither the district court’s Alice step two ver-
dict form nor the related jury instructions informed the
jury that the ’495 patent’s claims were directed to an ab-
stract idea, much less specified what that abstract idea
was. Nor did they instruct the jury that the abstract idea
itself could not supply the inventive concept under Alice
step two.
The verdict form asked only whether “ecobee prove[d]
by clear and convincing evidence that the limitations of the
asserted claims of the ’495 Patent, when taken individually
or when taken as an ordered combination, involve only
technology which a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have considered to be well-understood, routine, and con-
ventional as of April 9, 2004[.]” J.A. 8389. Similarly, the
district court’s instructions did not include any identifica-
tion of or reference to the abstract idea, instead noting only
that step one “is one for the Court to decide and not the
jury.” J.A. 2139, [1240:4–15] (final); J.A. 8099–101 (draft).
ecobee objected to the district court’s verdict form and
jury instructions and tendered alternative instructions
that identified the abstract idea. J.A. 2103–06, [1204:13–
1207:5]. The district court overruled ecobee’s objections
and denied ecobee’s post-judgment motion on the ’495
4 On appeal, neither party challenges the district
court’s conclusion that the asserted claims of the ’495 pa-
tent are directed to an abstract idea. We thus assume with-
out deciding that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 18 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 18 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 19
patent ineligibility jury instruction issue. Ollnova Techs.,
2024 WL 4107482, at *7–9.
Although Alice step two “involves a question of law,” AI
Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2024), it may also involve underlying fac-
tual determinations regarding whether claim limitations
were well-understood, routine, and conventional, BSG
Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). In this case, the jury was asked to resolve those
factual questions as to the ’495 patent’s claim limitations.
See J.A. 8119. The parties and the district court further
treated the jury’s finding as essentially resolving Alice step
two—that is, if the jury identified any aspect of the claim
that was not well-understood, routine, and conventional,
that sufficed to establish an inventive concept. See J.A.
2139, [1240:4–15]; J.A. 59.5 In other words, the jury was
effectively asked to determine whether the claim contained
an inventive concept without being instructed on the un-
derlying abstract concept required to frame that analysis
under Alice.
Under that framework, the district court’s instruction
was inconsistent with this Court’s precedent. This Court
has explained that “[a]fter identifying an ineligible concept
at step one, we ask at step two ‘[w]hat else is there in the
claims before us?’” BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78). Moreover, “a claimed invention’s
use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot
supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” Id.; see
also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378,
1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The abstract idea itself cannot
5 To be clear, the issue on appeal is narrow and con-
cerns the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on the
abstract idea.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 19 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 19 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 20
supply the inventive concept, ‘no matter how groundbreak-
ing the advance.’” (citation omitted)).
Consistent with that principle, this Court’s precedent
evaluates the alleged inventive concept at step two in light
of the abstract idea identified at step one.6 See Trading
Techs., 921 F.3d at 1384–85 (determining that the pur-
ported inventive concept merely implemented the abstract
idea of “providing a trader with additional financial infor-
mation to facilitate market trades”); ChargePoint, Inc. v.
SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(holding that the claimed “network-controlled” charging
stations “merely mirror[ed] the abstract idea itself” and
therefore could not supply an inventive concept); Bascom
Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that inventive concept
was a specific implementation of a filtering system, alt-
hough filtering itself was an abstract idea). Here, the dis-
trict court’s instruction failed to identify the abstract idea,
effectively permitting the jury to treat the abstract idea it-
self as supplying the inventive concept, contrary to this
Court’s precedent. “[T]he relevant inquiry” is “whether the
claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the inel-
igible concept to which it was directed were well-under-
stood, routine and conventional.” BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at
1290.
6 Ollnova’s reliance on the non-precedential opinion
Infernal Technology, LLC v. Sony Interactive Entertain-
ment LLC, No. 2022-1647, 2024 WL 390881, at *9 (Fed. Cir.
Feb. 2, 2024), in which the jury instructions were not chal-
lenged, is unpersuasive. See Appellant Resp. Br. 39–40.
Also, while the district court submitted the Alice step two
question to the jury, it ultimately concluded post-trial that
the claims were not directed to an abstract idea at step one,
compelling denial of the Section 101 challenge in any event.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 20 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 20 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 21
None of the cases cited by Ollnova permit consideration
of step two without first identifying7 an abstract idea at
step one. See Appellant Resp. Br. 40. In Amdocs (Israel)
Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1303 (Fed. Cir.
2016), and CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo
Security LLC, 15 F.4th 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2021), we first
recognized the district court’s identification of an abstract
idea at step one before evaluating at step two whether the
claims contained an inventive concept beyond that abstract
idea. Likewise, in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014), after identifying var-
ious characterizations of the abstract idea in the claims, we
proceed to step two and concluded that, “under any of these
characterizations of the abstract idea, the . . . claims sat-
isfy Mayo/Alice step two.”
7 An abstract idea may be identified, for example, not
just by a ruling but instead by stipulation, assumption, or
otherwise. Thus, nothing in this opinion should be taken
to cast doubt on district courts’ practice of denying mo-
tions—to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for judgment
as a matter of law—based on the existence of fact disputes
at step two, without definitively ruling as to step one. See,
e.g., Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
882 F.3d 1121, 1126–28 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (reviewing motion
to dismiss and only considering Alice step two); Coop. Ent.,
Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127, 131 (Fed. Cir.
2022) (“We need not address the parties’ dispute regarding
the application of Alice step one because, as explained be-
low, the claims contain alleged inventive concepts not lim-
ited to the abstract idea, which defeat Kollective’s Rule 12
motion.”). Nevertheless, district judges always retain dis-
cretion to determine the abstract idea before proceeding to
step 2, and doing so sometime before trial can avoid the
possibility that an after-trial resolution of step 1 would
identify a different abstract idea than reflected in the jury
charge, requiring a new trial.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 21 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 21 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 22
Ollnova contends that ecobee improperly sought to re-
quire the district court to separate out the abstract ele-
ments of the claim from the non-abstract elements. See
Appellant Resp. Br. 41. That mischaracterizes ecobee’s po-
sition. ecobee’s proposed instruction tracked the district
court’s own articulation of the abstract idea (“I found that
the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of ‘con-
trolling generic components using information from two
separate sources’”) and cautioned the jury not to rely on
that abstract idea in step two (“when considering whether
the ’495 patent discloses an inventive concept, you must
consider what, if anything, is in the claim beyond the ab-
stract idea itself”). J.A. 2104–06, [1205:6–1207:3]. ecobee’s
proposed instruction was consistent with this Court’s step-
two framework, and the district court abused its discretion
in rejecting it.
Nor was the district court’s failure to instruct the jury
on the abstract idea harmless error. Because the jury was
not informed of the abstract idea, it could not evaluate
whether the asserted claims were well-understood, rou-
tine, and conventional in light of the abstract idea identi-
fied at step one, and we cannot determine whether the jury
relied on that abstract idea to supply the inventive concept
in reaching its verdict. Ollnova argues that any error is
harmless because the experts purportedly focused their
trial testimony regarding step two on limitations beyond
the abstract idea. See Appellant Resp. Br. 43–44. But
Ollnova’s expert’s description of the allegedly inventive
concept closely tracks the abstract idea itself. The district
court identified the abstract idea as “controlling generic
‘components’ using information from two separate sources”
while Ollnova’s expert characterized the inventive concept
as a system with “‘two modes’ of control,”—including “one
where both networks work together to control and one
where the first wireless network is operable to control free
of communications [with the second network].” J.A. 63–64
(emphases added) (alteration in original). Because the jury
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 22 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 22 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 23
was not instructed as to what the abstract idea was, the
jury was permitted to rely on the abstract idea itself as sup-
plying the inventive concept in the step two analysis. The
error was therefore not harmless.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand to the
district court for further proceedings on Alice step two of
the Section 101 analysis as to the ’495 patent. If, on re-
mand, the district court chooses to have the jury decide
whether what is alleged to be the inventive concept is well-
understood, routine, and conventional, then the jury
should be instructed as to the abstract idea and informed
that the abstract idea cannot supply the inventive concept.
See Optis, 139 F.4th at 1380 n.11.
II
We next address ecobee’s Section 101 validity chal-
lenges. First, ecobee challenges the district court’s denial
of ecobee’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the
’495 patent’s asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Second, ecobee challenges the district court’s denial
of ecobee’s motions to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the
’887 and ’371 patents. As explained below, we reject each
of these arguments.
A
ecobee argues that it is entitled to judgment as a mat-
ter of law that the ’495 patent’s asserted claims are not pa-
tent eligible. Cross-Appellant Br. 31–38. Under the
governing standard, ecobee’s argument fails.8
A district court’s decision on a motion for a judgment
as a matter of law is reviewed under the law of the
8 Because Ollnova does not argue that the ’495 pa-
tent’s asserted claims are eligible as a matter of law, we
decide only whether the jury had a legally sufficient basis
for finding the claims eligible.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 23 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 23 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 24
“applicable regional circuit,” here, the Fifth Circuit. Light-
ing Ballast Control, LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 790
F.3d 1329, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). In the
Fifth Circuit, “[a] challenge to a JMOL ruling on an issue
preserved in district court is reviewed de novo, applying the
same standard applied by the district court.” Montano v.
Orange Cnty., 842 F.3d 865, 873 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only
when “a party has been fully heard on an issue and there
is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
jury to find for that party on that issue.” Id. (internal quo-
tations and citations omitted).
The district court held claim 1 of the ’495 patent to be
“directed to the abstract idea of controlling generic compo-
nents using information from two separate sources (i.e., in-
formation from two separate networks).” J.A. 132 (internal
quotations omitted). But, in denying ecobee’s motion for
summary judgment, the court explained that ecobee’s ex-
pert’s opinions that the combination of the elements was
not well-understood, routine, and conventional “is part of
why there remain material fact questions that should go to
the jury on this issue.” J.A. 2284 [69:5–13]. Those same
factual disputes foreclose judgment as a matter of law.
This Court has recognized that “an architecture provid-
ing a technological solution to a technological problem” can
“provide[] the requisite ‘something more’ than the perfor-
mance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional ac-
tivities previously known to the industry.” Amdocs, 841
F.3d at 1301 (citation omitted, first alteration added).
Here, the key dispute between the parties was whether the
’495 patent’s claimed dual-network architecture—particu-
larly the requirement that one network can operate “free of
communications” from the other—was conventional at the
time of the invention or otherwise provide an inventive con-
cept to survive Alice step two. ’495 patent at claim 1.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 24 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 24 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 25
The ’495 patent describes an architecture in which a
floor-level (first) wireless network can continue to control
building components independently of a higher-level (sec-
ond) network, enabling continued operation during inter-
rupted communications with the higher-level network. See
’495 patent, Abstract; id. col. 2 ll. 14–36; id. col. 10 ll. 36–
41. The claimed architecture allows coordinated operation
when both networks are available, while preserving local
control when the higher-level network is unavailable.
At trial, Ollnova’s expert, Dr. Madisetti, identified the
inventive concept through such “two modes” of control: “one
where both networks work together to control” building
components and “one where the first wireless network is
operable to control free of communications” with the second
network. J.A. 1691–92, [1073:23–1074:15]. He explained
that prior art systems relying on a single wireless network
could “lose control of [their] functionality” in the event of a
“communication failure,” such that a user “could have
wrong measurements and that will result in different im-
proper settings of your HVAC equipment that could result
in overheating or overcooling . . . .” J.A. 467, [268:18–24];
J.A. 468, [269:2–5]. In the ’495 patent’s system, in con-
trast, he explained that the claimed architecture ensured
that if there was “communication failure” with one net-
work, the invention ensured that “you don’t lose control
over your HVAC . . . and your equipment.” J.A. 468,
[269:20–25]; see also J.A. 688, [280:2–19] (testifying that
“even if you lose WiFi connectivity, the [Bluetooth] network
is sufficient to allow the system to . . . control your HVAC
and other systems”).
ecobee contends that this concept is indistinguishable
from the abstract idea of “controlling generic ‘components’
using information from two separate [networks].” Cross-
Appellant Br. 33 (alteration in original). But this argu-
ment ignores the essence of Dr. Madisetti’s testimony,
which was that the patent’s inventive concept was “the ap-
plication of multiple wireless networks that were free of
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 25 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 25 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 26
communication from each other” “for more reliant control
of a building’s automation systems.” Ollnova Techs., 2024
WL 4107482, at *6 (emphases added). Notably, ecobee’s
expert, Dr. Martens, did not meaningfully address the
claim requirement that the first network operates “free of
communications” from the second network in his ineligibil-
ity analysis. See generally J.A. 1578–84, [918:11–924:6].
ecobee further contends that the claims cannot supply
an inventive concept because they do not expressly recite
the benefit of maintaining control during system failure.
Cross-Appellant Br. 36. But “[c]laims need not articulate
the advantages of the claimed combinations to be eligible.”
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303,
1309 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In any event, claim 1 expressly re-
quires that the “first wireless network is operable to con-
trol, free of communications with the second wireless
network,” which embodies that functionality. ’495 patent
at claim 1.
In sum, the record contains sufficient evidence from
which a reasonable jury could have found that the claimed
dual-network architecture of the ’495 patent was not well-
understood, routine, or conventional. Hence, judgment as
a matter of law is unwarranted.
B
ecobee next contends that the district court erroneously
concluded that the asserted claims of the ’887 patent are
not directed to an abstract idea. We disagree.
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of
law that may involve underlying questions of fact. Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (citation omitted). “We review the district court’s ul-
timate conclusion on patent eligibility de novo.” Id. (cita-
tion omitted).
“In our eligibility analysis, we consider the claim as a
whole, and read it in light of the specification.” Packet
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 26 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 26 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 27
Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., 965 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). But, “while the specification
may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when ana-
lyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must
always yield to the claim language in identifying that fo-
cus.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759,
766 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The
§ 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted
Claims themselves.”).
We have held inventions to be patent-eligible where
they recite “a technological solution to a technological prob-
lem.” See Packet Intel., 965 F.3d at 1309. For example, in
Packet Intelligence, we held that the claims directed to clas-
sifying computer network traffic were patent eligible at
step one because they addressed a challenge unique to com-
puter networks—identifying disjointed connection flows—
and recited a specific technique for meeting that challenge.
Id. Although the claims recited general steps for data clas-
sification, the specification provided important context in
explaining how those claimed steps purported to address
problems in the prior art by providing a more granular, nu-
anced, and useful classification of network traffic to better
match disjointed data connection flows. Id.
Like the claims in Packet Intelligence, the claims here
are directed to a specific technology-based improvement in
the operation of a network, here using a “wireless automa-
tion device.” ’887 patent at claim 1. Representative claim
1 recites a controller that (1) monitors a parameter from a
sensor, but only during a polling interval and (2) transmits
that parameter, but only during a transmission interval
and only when that parameter is outside a predetermined
range. Id.
Read as a whole, those limitations do not merely de-
scribe collecting and communicating data in the abstract.
Instead, they recite a particular technique governing when
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 27 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 27 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 28
and how information is transmitted within a network using
a wireless automation device. The claim imposes timing
constraints (polling and transmission intervals) and a con-
ditional transmission trigger (outside a predetermined
range) that together contribute to reducing the controller’s
communications within the network.
The specification confirms that the claimed limitations
address concrete technical problems in BAS networks. The
specification explains that BAS networks, like other wire-
less networks, can be noisy, have limited available band-
width, and consume large amounts of power from
continuous monitoring and broadcasting of information.
Id. col. 1 ll. 34–46. The claimed invention’s recited tech-
niques, as highlighted by the specification, reduce unnec-
essary communications and conserve power by preventing
routine or redundant transmissions when monitored val-
ues remain within a predetermined range. Id. col. 1 ll. 56–
62; id. col. 10 ll. 41–44. In this way, the claimed invention
recites a technological solution to a technological problem.
ecobee argues that the claims are directed to “the ab-
stract steps required to collect, analyze, and selectively
communicate data.” Cross-Appellant Br. 40. We disagree.
That characterization oversimplifies the claims by ignoring
their specific operational limitations, including timing con-
straints and conditional transmission. We have cautioned
against “oversimplifying the claims by looking at them gen-
erally and failing to account for the specific requirements
of the claims.” CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d
1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted) (internal
quotations omitted).
Moreover, the cases ecobee relies on do not involve com-
parable improvements in the operation of an existing tech-
nological system. In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claimed
invention merely collected data from sensors located across
an electric grid, analyzed it, and displayed the results
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 28 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 28 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 29
without changing how existing sensors worked, how infor-
mation was analyzed or transmitted, or how it was dis-
played. Id. Likewise, in Chamberlain Group, Inc. v.
Techtronic Industries Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1346–47 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) and Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV,
LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claimed in-
ventions were directed to nothing more than wirelessly
communicating information without altering when or how
the information was transmitted.
Here, in contrast, the claims recite a particularized set
of constraints that alters when and how data is collected
and transmitted. The claims are not merely directed to a
result, such as “filtering data” or “transmitting relevant in-
formation,” but to a defined technique for achieving such
results. The combination of periodic polling, transmission
intervals, and selective transmission upon a threshold be-
ing met reflects a particular means for communications
within BAS networks rather than a generalized data-han-
dling concept.
ecobee cites Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.,
72 F.4th 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023), to argue that the use
of a “predetermined threshold” “merely reflects the kind of
data analysis that the abstract idea of matching neces-
sarily includes.” Cross-Appellant Br. 40. In that case, the
claimed invention was a system that matched users by
comparing each user’s answers to a poll. Trinity, 72 F.4th
at 1359, 1364–65. Claiming a predetermined threshold
was not sufficient in Trinity to save a claim from being di-
rected to the abstract idea of “matching based on question-
ing.” Id. at 1365. In Trinity, we determined that the claims
were directed to a process that (1) was capable of being per-
formed by a human mind, and (2) “merely [sought] to use
computers as a tool,” id. at 1363, before analyzing whether
the invocation of a “predetermined threshold” limitation
changed the focus of the claimed invention, id. at 1365.
Conversely here, the transmission of data based on the
claimed “predetermined range” changes how the system
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 29 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 29 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 30
communicates information and is thus part of the techno-
logical improvement recited by the claims.
ecobee’s human-driven analogy is unpersuasive.
Cross-Appellant Br. 41.9 It fails to account for the wireless
network communications challenges addressed by the in-
ventors and the claimed improvements to device operation.
See Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999,
1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It is not enough, however, to merely
trace the invention to some real-world analogy.”).
Accordingly, we conclude that the asserted claims of
the ’887 patent are not directed to an abstract idea under
Alice step one. We do not reach Alice step two.
C
ecobee also contends that the district court erroneously
concluded that the asserted claims of the ’371 patent are
not directed to an abstract idea. We disagree.
Similarly to the ’887 patent, the claims of the ’371 pa-
tent are directed to a specific improvement in the operation
of automation components within a wireless communica-
tion system. See ’371 patent at claim 13. The claimed in-
vention provides a specific manner in which data is
transmitted within a BAS system. First, the claimed “au-
tomation component” receives aggregated COV “messages”
as a single “update” transmission (the “COV update”) from
“a plurality of devices.” Id. Second, the claimed
9 ecobee argues that a person may ask their friend to
call them if the temperature outside drops below 70°.
Cross-Appellant Br. 41. If the friend sees that the temper-
ature dropped below 70°, the friend will call the person and
let them know. Id. If the friend starts to call but then sees
that the temperature is above 70°, the friend can hang up
the phone without providing any update. Id.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 30 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 30 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 31
“automation component” “repeats” communication of the
COV update until “acknowledgement” in a BAS. Id.
The specification confirms that the claimed communi-
cation means addresses technical challenges arising in
BAS networks. A BAS may consist of multiple wireless
networks, such as a building-level network (102), and a
floor-level network (108). See id. col. 1 ll. 1–49; id. col. 4 ll.
22–32.
Id., FIG. 1.
As depicted in FIG. 1, each network may include vari-
ous peripheral automation components (i.e., sensors, con-
trollers, actuators used to control HVAC, security systems,
and fire systems) (110a–f, 112a–f). See id. col. 1 ll. 13–20;
id. col. 4 ll. 32–42. Centralized automation components
may also exist in clusters independent of a floor network
(116a–g). Id. col. 4 ll. 55–64; id. col. 5 ll. 4–10.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 31 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 31 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 32
Due to this complexity of many different components
interacting with each other, BAS wireless networks are
susceptible to limited bandwidth and communication fail-
ures, and the claimed invention provides technological so-
lutions to both of these technological problems. See id. col.
7 ll. 62–65; id. col. 8 ll. 10–13.
First, the COV messages are aggregated into a “COV
update,” which claim 13 describes as “includ[ing] a plural-
ity of change of value messages received from a plurality of
devices” and then transmitted to the claimed “automation
component.” Id. col. 7 ll. 39–42, 58–62; id. at claim 13. The
patent specification describes an embodiment that avoids
having the centralized component consume bandwidth
through sending repeated polling messages to peripheral
components for any COV information. Instead of polling
each peripheral component, the specification describes a
push-based approach in which peripheral sensors transmit
updates (i.e., COV messages) only as they occur. See id.
col. 7 ll. 11–30. Moreover, as the specification explains,
“[b]y pushing COV’s up to [centralized] automation compo-
nent [] as opposed to polling each [peripheral] automation
component [], less wireless bandwidth is used and system
end to end delays shortened.” Id. col. 7 ll. 62–65; see Oral
Arg. at 45:13 – 47:9 (available at
https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1045_04
082026.mp3).
Second, when communicating the COV updates to
other parts of the BAS, the claimed automation component
repeatedly transmits the aggregated COV information “at
regular intervals according to a schedule or until a change-
of-value acknowledgment is received.” See ’371 patent at
claim 13. In this manner, the system is “configured to ad-
dress and handle communications difficulties” within the
network. Id. col. 8 ll. 10–13. “For example, if COV polling
requests cannot be communicated or are not acknowledged
by the intended receiving component, then the algorithm []
may be configured to recover from the communications
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 32 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 32 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 33
failure” by “repeating communication attempts a predeter-
mined number of times.” Id. col. 8 ll. 13–19.
Indeed, claim 13 is similar to those held eligible in
Uniloc. See 957 F.3d at 1308. In Uniloc, the claimed in-
vention improved conventional communication systems by
including a data field for polling as part of an inquiry mes-
sage, thus allowing primary stations to send inquiry mes-
sages and conduct polling simultaneously. Id. at 1305,
1307–08. That is, a specific operational change resulted in
a functional improvement. Likewise here, claim 13 im-
proves communication within a BAS network by modifying
how COV messages are handled—aggregating and pushing
COV messages to a centralized automation component and
then repeatedly communicating that aggregate message—
thereby reducing wireless bandwidth usage and also over-
coming communication failures. ’371 patent at claim 13;
id. col. 7 ll. 58–65.
ecobee’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
ecobee fails to meaningfully engage with the claims’ spe-
cific technical limitations, instead electing to characterize
the claims at a high level of abstraction. That approach is
“untethered from the language of the claims” and the spec-
ification. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For the reasons explained
above, the claims are not merely directed to abstract data
collection and communication, Cross-Appellant Br. 40, and
ecobee’s failure to address the specific technical features
identified by Ollnova10 leave us with no persuasive reason
to overturn the district court’s ruling.
10 For instance, at oral argument, ecobee’s counsel of-
fered no response to Ollnova’s counsel’s explanation re-
garding the specific technical solution of aggregating and
pushing COV information from peripheral devices. See
generally Oral Arg. at 45:13 – 47:9, 1:04:16 – 1:17:45.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 33 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 33 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 34
ecobee’s reliance on the same cases involving general-
ized data analysis and transmission claims it cited against
the ’887 patent is misplaced. See Cross-Appellant Br. 40.
Unlike the automation component for a wireless communi-
cation system claimed here, those cases did not involve a
comparably specific asserted improvement in the operation
of an existing technological system. See, e.g., Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354–55; Chamberlain Grp., 935 F.3d at
1346–48; Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258–62.
ecobee also asserts, without support, that the claimed
aggregation of COV information and repeated communica-
tions constitute routine and conventional steps. Cross-Ap-
pellant Br. 43; Cross-Appellant Reply Br. 16. That
assertion is not convincing.
Nor does that assertion undercut Ollnova’s point that
these claimed features provide a particular technical man-
ner of handling communications between components in a
BAS. Nor does ecobee offer any substantive argument or
evidence that, in the context of a BAS network as described
in the specification, such repeated communications until
acknowledgement is received should be discounted.
ecobee’s human-driven analogy likewise fails for the
same reasons as stated for the ’887 patent. Cross-Appel-
lant Br. 40–41.11 It fails to account for the wireless net-
work communications challenges addressed by the
11 ecobee contends that, within an apartment, differ-
ent people may notice temperature changes in their bed-
rooms and request someone to notify the landlord. Cross-
Appellant Br. 40–41. That landlord may write down the
temperature change information, and when building man-
agement later requests a building status update, the land-
lord may send the temperature change information to
building management multiple times to ensure they are
aware of the issue. Id.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 34 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 34 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 35
inventors and the claimed improvements to device opera-
tion. See Data Engine Techs., 906 F.3d at 1011.
Accordingly, we conclude that the asserted claims of
the ’371 patent are not directed to an abstract idea under
Alice step one and do not reach Alice step two.
III
Next, ecobee argues that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law that the ’371 patent’s asserted claims are not
infringed because the accused products do not communi-
cate the same COV update repeatedly. Cross-Appellant Br.
50–52. We disagree.
The asserted claims of the ’371 patent require generat-
ing a COV update and communicating that update “at reg-
ular intervals” according to a schedule or “until a change-
of-value acknowledgement is received.” See ’371 patent at
claims 1, 17. ecobee argues that the claims require that the
exact same message is repeated and that its thermostats
therefore do not infringe because they do not repeat the
same updates.
Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of in-
fringement even under ecobee’s interpretation of the
claims. Ollnova’s expert disagreed with ecobee’s argument
that ecobee’s smart thermostats do not send out the same
message repeatedly. See J.A. 2018–19, [1122:9–1123:9];
see also J.A. 1277–78, [621:25–622:12]; J.A. 1283, [627:3–
9]. Ollnova’s expert explained when ecobee’s thermostats
send information to a server, the server will reply with a
message. J.A. 2018–19, [1122:9–1123:9]. If the server does
not reply, then ecobee’s thermostat will send the same in-
formation again, at a minimum. Id. The jury was entitled
to credit that testimony and find that the same message
was repeated, as required by the claims, even if the ther-
mostat’s second message includes additional information.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 35 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 35 of 36 --

OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC 36
Because there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for the
jury’s verdict, we must affirm the district court’s denial of
ecobee’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
IV
Because we vacate both the infringement and damages
judgments, we do not reach the parties’ remaining chal-
lenges to the district court’s evidentiary rulings or its limi-
tation of prejudgment interest on the lump sum reasonable
royalty award to the statutory damages period under 35
U.S.C. § 286. See Appellant Opening Br. 10–22; Cross-Ap-
pellant Br. 52–64. Those issues may be addressed by the
district court on remand if necessary.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate both the infringe-
ment and damages judgments and remand for proceedings
consistent with this opinion, including a new trial on in-
fringement and damages. We vacate and remand for fur-
ther proceedings under Alice step two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101
analysis as to the ’495 patent. We affirm the district court’s
determination that the asserted claims of the ’887 and ’371
patents are not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. We also affirm the district court’s denial of ecobee’s
motion for judgment as a matter of law concerning non-in-
fringement of the ’371 patent. And, we dismiss Ollnova’s
appeal regarding prejudgment interest and ecobee’s re-
maining appeal regarding its Daubert motions.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, DISMISSED-IN-PART,
AND VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1045 Document: 78 Page: 36 Filed: 06/04/2026

-- 36 of 36 --