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
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026
Publications
In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip
Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.
June 23, 2026