Federal Circuit Splits Patent Eligibility Ruling in Constellation Designs v. LG—and Leaves Infringement and Damages Intact

On August 31, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. that is useful for patent owners and accused infringers for a reason that goes beyond the underlying communications technology: the court treated patent eligibility, infringement, and damages as distinct issues and reached a mixed result rather than allowing one issue to swallow the entire case.

The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of patent eligibility for several asserted claims, affirmed eligibility for others, affirmed the denial of LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on noninfringement, and affirmed the district court’s treatment of damages and the challenged damages-expert testimony. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion is worth reading closely because it shows how claim-specific a Section 101 analysis can become in a complex technology case.

What happened in Constellation Designs v. LG?

Constellation asserted patents involving digital communication technology. At a high level, the technology concerned techniques used in transmitting and receiving digital information through communication channels. The district court had concluded that multiple asserted patent claims were eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A jury also found infringement and awarded damages.

On appeal, LG challenged several parts of the judgment. The Federal Circuit did not resolve everything in LG’s favor or everything in Constellation’s favor. Instead, it separated the different groups of claims and the different legal questions.

The court vacated the summary judgment of eligibility as to claims 17, 21, 24, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,861,761 and claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,792,700. It affirmed the eligibility ruling as to claims 21 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,284,509 and claims 24 and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 9,246,922. It also affirmed the denial of LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and affirmed the district court’s damages rulings.

Why the decision matters for Section 101 strategy

Patent-eligibility disputes often get described at a high level: software, communications, data processing, optimization, or another broad technological category. But eligibility is ultimately assessed by looking at the claims actually asserted. Constellation Designs is a reminder that related patents directed to a common technological field can produce different eligibility results when their claims are drafted differently.

That matters long before litigation. During patent application drafting and prosecution, the way an invention is claimed can affect how a later court characterizes what the claim is “directed to.” A specification that explains the technological problem, the claimed mechanism, and the technical improvement can also matter when a court evaluates whether the claim is merely abstract or is directed to a concrete technological solution.

For patent owners already in litigation, the decision reinforces another practical point: do not assume that a favorable eligibility ruling for one asserted claim necessarily answers the question for every related claim. A case with multiple patents may require claim-by-claim and patent-by-patent analysis.

The infringement verdict survived

LG also challenged the jury’s infringement finding. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the verdict and affirmed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement.

That distinction is important. Eligibility under Section 101 asks whether the claimed subject matter is the type of innovation the patent system may protect. Infringement asks whether an accused product or process meets the limitations of an enforceable patent claim. They are different questions with different records and different legal standards.

For businesses evaluating a patent dispute, this means a serious case assessment should not stop with a single “validity” label. Counsel should separately evaluate claim construction, eligibility, anticipation, obviousness, written description, enablement, infringement, and damages. Tucker Law’s patent practice addresses prosecution and enforcement with those later litigation issues in mind.

The damages ruling is also significant

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to exclude Constellation’s damages expert and affirmed the denial of LG’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no damages. The appellate court concluded that the record provided a sufficient basis for the expert’s reliance on comparable licenses and a built-in apportionment theory.

Damages experts in patent cases often face challenges over comparability and apportionment. A license involving different products or portfolios does not automatically become unusable, but the expert needs a defensible explanation for why the agreement is economically relevant and how differences are accounted for. The opinion illustrates why damages work should begin early enough for the litigation team to develop the necessary factual record rather than treating damages as a last-minute expert exercise.

One issue LG raised too late

The opinion also contains a procedural lesson. During oral argument, LG argued that if the Federal Circuit found some asserted claims ineligible, it should vacate the damages award. The court said that argument was foreseeable and should have been raised in the opening brief; arguments first presented at oral argument may be forfeited.

That is a straightforward appellate point with major practical consequences. A party should identify the remedial consequences of each appellate issue in its principal brief, including what should happen to a judgment if only part of the appealed ruling is reversed.

What patent owners and technology companies should take from the case

First, claim drafting still matters. Closely related claims can receive different Section 101 treatment. Patent applicants should focus on claims that capture a concrete technical solution rather than relying on broad functional results.

Second, litigation issues should be separated rather than blended together. Eligibility, infringement, and damages may rise or fall independently. A disciplined case strategy evaluates each issue on its own record.

Third, damages evidence should be developed with comparability and apportionment in mind. Comparable licenses can be powerful evidence, but they require a reasoned connection to the patented technology and the accused products.

Fourth, appellate briefing must address the requested remedy. Preserving an argument usually means more than identifying an error; the brief should explain what the appellate court should do if it agrees.

For inventors and companies developing patent portfolios, these litigation lessons can improve prosecution strategy before a dispute ever begins. Tucker Law represents clients in intellectual-property matters, including patent preparation, prosecution, appeals, licensing, and patent litigation.

This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice. The outcome of any patent matter depends on the specific facts, claims, procedural posture, and governing law.