Two Federal Circuit Decisions Nullify Nine-Figure Damages Awards
In two June 2025 decisions, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected patent infringement jury verdicts for $218.5 million and $300 million—one reversed for claiming patent ineligible subject matter, and the other vacated due to an improper question on the jury verdict form for infringement.
First, in United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A., USAA’s patent assertion campaign relating to remote check deposit technology against various banks over the past several years hit a roadblock when the Federal Circuit determined the asserted USAA patents were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming an abstract idea, which negated the $218.5 million damages award against PNC Bank.
The trial court in the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment for USAA that its patents were patent eligible—finding the claims not directed to an abstract idea under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. On appeal, PNC Bank argued that the district court’s grant of summary judgment was erroneous, and that the patent claims are invalid under § 101 for claiming an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit agreed, and issued two related June 12, 2025, opinions reversing the district court’s summary judgment of patent eligibility. The Federal Circuit went one step further and determined the claims from the USAA patents were ineligible for claiming an abstract idea without an inventive concept under Alice.
Using the two-step analysis from Alice, the Federal Circuit first determined in Step 1 that “the claims are directed to the abstract idea of depositing a check using a handheld mobile device,” because the claim elements recite well-known steps taken when depositing checks using general-purpose hardware, do not claim how to carry out the required claims steps but merely contain results-oriented claim language that does not contain a non-abstract technical solution.
The Court’s Step 2 analysis concluded that the claims contained no inventive concept that transforms the abstract claims into a patent eligible application. The Court rejected USAA’s argument that its patents solved a technological problem of accurate detection and extraction of information from digital images of checks. It found that the claims merely use routine or conventional activities long associated with depositing checks using general-purpose mobile devices. With the patent’s ineligible for patent protection, the infringement and damages verdict cannot stand.
Second, in Optus Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated an infringement and damages judgment, and remanded for a new trial, because the district court’s jury verdict form question on infringement violated Apple’s right to a unanimous jury decision. Despite the parties’ request for separate questions for each of the five asserted patents, the district court included only a single question asking whether “Apple infringed ANY of the asserted claims?” The affirmative response to that question led to a $300 million damages award.
On appeal, Apple argued that the single question for five patents erroneously required an affirmative answer, even if none of the five patents were unanimously found to infringe. As the Court noted, if each juror believed at least one claim of one patent was infringed, then the jury was required to answer “yes” to the infringement question. That would be true even if the various jurors believed a different patent was infringed, which would not constitute a unanimous determination of infringement of any one patent.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Using the two-step analysis from Alice, the Federal Circuit first determined in Step 1 that “the claims are directed to the abstract idea of depositing a check using a handheld mobile device,” because the claim elements recite well-known steps taken when depositing checks using general-purpose hardware, do not claim how to carry out the required claims steps but merely contain results-oriented claim language that does not contain a non-abstract technical solution.
The Court’s Step 2 analysis concluded that the claims contained no inventive concept that transforms the abstract claims into a patent eligible application. The Court rejected USAA’s argument that its patents solved a technological problem of accurate detection and extraction of information from digital images of checks. It found that the claims merely use routine or conventional activities long associated with depositing checks using general-purpose mobile devices. With the patent’s ineligible for patent protection, the infringement and damages verdict cannot stand.
Second, in Optus Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated an infringement and damages judgment, and remanded for a new trial, because the district court’s jury verdict form question on infringement violated Apple’s right to a unanimous jury decision. Despite the parties’ request for separate questions for each of the five asserted patents, the district court included only a single question asking whether “Apple infringed ANY of the asserted claims?” The affirmative response to that question led to a $300 million damages award.
On appeal, Apple argued that the single question for five patents erroneously required an affirmative answer, even if none of the five patents were unanimously found to infringe. As the Court noted, if each juror believed at least one claim of one patent was infringed, then the jury was required to answer “yes” to the infringement question. That would be true even if the various jurors believed a different patent was infringed, which would not constitute a unanimous determination of infringement of any one patent.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
In two June 2025 decisions, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected patent infringement jury verdicts for $218.5 million and $300 million—one reversed for claiming patent ineligible subject matter, and the other vacated due to an improper question on the jury verdict form for infringement.
First, in United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A., USAA’s patent assertion campaign relating to remote check deposit technology against various banks over the past several years hit a roadblock when the Federal Circuit determined the asserted USAA patents were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming an abstract idea, which negated the $218.5 million damages award against PNC Bank.
The trial court in the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment for USAA that its patents were patent eligible—finding the claims not directed to an abstract idea under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. On appeal, PNC Bank argued that the district court’s grant of summary judgment was erroneous, and that the patent claims are invalid under § 101 for claiming an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit agreed, and issued two related June 12, 2025, opinions reversing the district court’s summary judgment of patent eligibility. The Federal Circuit went one step further and determined the claims from the USAA patents were ineligible for claiming an abstract idea without an inventive concept under Alice.
Using the two-step analysis from Alice, the Federal Circuit first determined in Step 1 that “the claims are directed to the abstract idea of depositing a check using a handheld mobile device,” because the claim elements recite well-known steps taken when depositing checks using general-purpose hardware, do not claim how to carry out the required claims steps but merely contain results-oriented claim language that does not contain a non-abstract technical solution.
The Court’s Step 2 analysis concluded that the claims contained no inventive concept that transforms the abstract claims into a patent eligible application. The Court rejected USAA’s argument that its patents solved a technological problem of accurate detection and extraction of information from digital images of checks. It found that the claims merely use routine or conventional activities long associated with depositing checks using general-purpose mobile devices. With the patent’s ineligible for patent protection, the infringement and damages verdict cannot stand.
Second, in Optus Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated an infringement and damages judgment, and remanded for a new trial, because the district court’s jury verdict form question on infringement violated Apple’s right to a unanimous jury decision. Despite the parties’ request for separate questions for each of the five asserted patents, the district court included only a single question asking whether “Apple infringed ANY of the asserted claims?” The affirmative response to that question led to a $300 million damages award.
On appeal, Apple argued that the single question for five patents erroneously required an affirmative answer, even if none of the five patents were unanimously found to infringe. As the Court noted, if each juror believed at least one claim of one patent was infringed, then the jury was required to answer “yes” to the infringement question. That would be true even if the various jurors believed a different patent was infringed, which would not constitute a unanimous determination of infringement of any one patent.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Using the two-step analysis from Alice, the Federal Circuit first determined in Step 1 that “the claims are directed to the abstract idea of depositing a check using a handheld mobile device,” because the claim elements recite well-known steps taken when depositing checks using general-purpose hardware, do not claim how to carry out the required claims steps but merely contain results-oriented claim language that does not contain a non-abstract technical solution.
The Court’s Step 2 analysis concluded that the claims contained no inventive concept that transforms the abstract claims into a patent eligible application. The Court rejected USAA’s argument that its patents solved a technological problem of accurate detection and extraction of information from digital images of checks. It found that the claims merely use routine or conventional activities long associated with depositing checks using general-purpose mobile devices. With the patent’s ineligible for patent protection, the infringement and damages verdict cannot stand.
Second, in Optus Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated an infringement and damages judgment, and remanded for a new trial, because the district court’s jury verdict form question on infringement violated Apple’s right to a unanimous jury decision. Despite the parties’ request for separate questions for each of the five asserted patents, the district court included only a single question asking whether “Apple infringed ANY of the asserted claims?” The affirmative response to that question led to a $300 million damages award.
On appeal, Apple argued that the single question for five patents erroneously required an affirmative answer, even if none of the five patents were unanimously found to infringe. As the Court noted, if each juror believed at least one claim of one patent was infringed, then the jury was required to answer “yes” to the infringement question. That would be true even if the various jurors believed a different patent was infringed, which would not constitute a unanimous determination of infringement of any one patent.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Publications
In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.
August 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026
Publications
Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight
The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.
August 13, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List
Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
August 10, 2026
Publications
In Law360, Trump Debarment Threat Calls for Targeted Defense Plan
Partners Ashley Callen and David Robbins authored an article for Law360 examining how entities should respond when suspension or debarment is threatened directly by the president, rather than initiated through the usual agency-driven process.
August 6, 2026