Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025)

In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues arising from a trial between Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and its North American affiliate Obert, Inc. (collectively, “Super Lighting”) and CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Elliott Electric Supply, Inc., and Shaoxing Ruising Lighting Co., Ltd. (collectively, “CH Lighting”) for infringement of Super Lighting’s U.S. Patent Nos. 10,295,125; 10,352,540; and 9,939,140, which relate generally to light-emitting diode (“LED”) tube lamps.  Of particular note, the Court expanded on its recent en banc decision in EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, 137 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—which concerned the reliability of expert damages testimony in patent cases—and remanded with instructions to observe its new guidance therein.

Initially, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the district court erred in granting Super Lighting’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the ’125 and ’540 patents were not invalid because it erroneously prevented CH Lighting from presenting evidence of their invalidity.  The Federal Circuit held that the district court did err and ordered a new trial as to the invalidity of the ’125 and ’540 patents.  The Court also addressed whether, as to the ’140 patent, there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdicts of infringement and no invalidity.  The Federal Circuit held that there was substantial evidence to support both.

Third, and notably, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the district court properly assessed the reliability of Super Lighting’s damages expert—a Ms. Kindler—consistent with the Court’s recent en banc decision in EcoFactor and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  The panel held that the district court failed to do so, and further ordered a new trial as to damages for infringement of all three patents.

At trial, Ms. Kindler had relied on Super Lighting’s previous portfolio licenses with Technical Consumer Products (“TCP license”) and Lunera Lightning, Inc. (“Lunera license”)—along with evidence from Super Lighting—to propose a per-unit royalty based on a hypothetical negotiation.  The TCP licensing agreement involved a 30-cent per-unit royalty, and the Lunera license involved a flat 5% fee (which she calculated would translate to a per-unit royalty fee between 35 and 45 cents).  Although the Lunera and TCP licenses granted a license to Super Lighting’s entire patent portfolio, Ms. Kindler opined that three particular patents comparable to the asserted patents drove the negotiations.  In its pretrial Daubert motion and motion for a new trial, CH Lighting argued that Ms. Kindler’s testimony was not reliable and that she failed to apportion the license fees to account for licensed patents that were not asserted.  The district court denied CH Lighting’s Daubert motion without explanation.  The Federal Circuit recently considered the issue of patent damages experts’ reliability under Rule 702 in EcoFactor, in which it explained that testimony as to a hypothetical negotiation that is based on prior licenses must be supported by sufficient facts or data.  The Federal Circuit instructed the district court that, on remand, it is to consider the reliability of Ms. Kindler’s expert testimony in light of EcoFactor, with a particular focus on whether she reasonably relied on the kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion that would be reasonably relied upon by an expert in her field.  The Court emphasized that, if there is a problem with Ms. Kindler’s damages testimony, her testimony cannot be justified simply because she made a series of blanket upward and downward adjustments based on such factors as the level of competition between the parties and changes in the price of LED products at issue.

The opinion can be found here.

By Mario E. Delegato

ALSO THIS WEEK 

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1359 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)

In a precedential order, the full Federal Circuit declined to hear this case en banc.  We wrote the case up as our Case of the Week in February this year, when the panel decision issued.  See here.  The issue was the collateral estoppel effect of a decision in an inter partes review on other, patentably indistinct claims.  The panel decided that collateral estoppel did not apply, given the different burdens of proof as between inter partes review (preponderance of the evidence) and district court proceedings (clear and convincing evidence).  The full Federal Circuit declined to review the matter en banc.  Judge Moore, joined by Judge Stoll, filed an opinion concurring in the decision.  Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Hughes, filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that the full court should have reheard the matter.

The opinion can be found here.

By Nika Aldrich

FMC Corporation v. Sharda USA, LLC, Appeal No. 2024-2335 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025)

In this appeal involving certain insecticide patents owned by FMC Corp., the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings.  The Court’s opinion turned largely on interpretation of the term “composition” in the asserted claims, which the district court had construed to be limited to “stable” compositions based on disclosures in the patents’ parent application, as well as in a sister application claiming priority to that same parent.  However, those disclosures did not appear in the specifications of the asserted patents themselves—in those patents, every disclosure emphasizing a “stable composition” had been removed.  The Federal Circuit found that a skilled artisan would assign meaning to that progression, and would understand that as used in the asserted patents, the patentee did not intend for the term “composition” to be limited to stable compositions.

The Federal Circuit accordingly found that the district court erred in its claim construction, and thus erred in analyzing Sharda’s anticipation and obviousness challenges.  Among other things, the Court further suggested that the district court applied the wrong standard in rejecting those challenges, emphasizing that at the preliminary injunction stage, a defendant need only show a “substantial question of invalidity,” which the patentee must then show it is more likely than not to prevail on for preliminary relief to issue.  The Federal Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The opinion can be found here.

By Jason A. Wrubleski

This article summarizes aspects of the law and does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice with regard to your situation, you should contact an attorney.