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 Lawyers
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 Lawyers
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
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026
Recognition
Jenner & Block Rises in American Lawyer Rankings for Summer Associate Experience
Jenner & Block ranked 14th nationally in The American Lawyer’s 2026 Summer Associate Satisfaction Survey, jumping 10 spots from last year. The annual survey measures summer associate satisfaction at US law firms based on ratings provided directly by summer associates across key firm qualities.
October 2, 2026
Publications
Partner Ashley Callen Discusses Potential Congressional Investigations in Reuters
Partner Ashley Callen was quoted in a Reuters article examining how Democrats could ramp up congressional investigations into Trump family business dealings if they win control of the House or Senate in the 2026 midterm elections this November.
September 30, 2026
Event
Associate Steven Arango Addresses North Korean IT Worker Threat in Talks to Business Executives for National Security Members in Texas
On September 29 and 30, Associate Steven Arango led luncheon discussions titled "North Korea's IT Worker Threat: Corporate Risk and Response" for Business Executives for National Security (BENS) members in Dallas and Austin, Texas, speaking to an audience of CEOs, CISOs, and other senior leaders from the national security, finance, and healthcare sectors.
September 2026