In Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., No. 23-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment based on a jury verdict of infringement and validity of one patent, reversed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law that two other patents were not invalid due to an on-sale bar, and vacated the award of damages for all three patents.
For the on-sale bar defense, the district court excluded testimony that authenticated sales documents related to alleged prior art products, finding that the authenticating witness had not been properly identified before trial. The Federal Circuit reversed by determining that these exclusions were an abuse of discretion because there is no requirement to identify who will authenticate documents in the Federal or local rules. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit remanded for a new trial on invalidity.
For damages, the Federal Circuit ordered a new trial because the jury rendered a single verdict without breaking down the damages attributable to each patent. The Federal Circuit also considered Jiaxing Super Lighting's expert's proposed per-unit royalty for the hypothetical negotiation for the three at-issue patents, which relied on, among other things, previous licenses to Jiaxing Super Lighting's entire patent portfolio with other companies. The Federal Circuit stated that on remand, the district court should consider the reliability of this testimony in light of the court's recent en banc decision in EcoFactor.
* Co-authored with Leopold Schneider is a Legal Research Assistant at Finnegan.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
