Ecobee Technologies and Ollnova Technologies have settled a smart thermostat patent infringement dispute after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated an $11.5 million jury verdict Ollnova had won against Ecobee, finding the trial judge mishandled how infringement questions were put to the jury. The parties notified the Texas federal court overseeing the case that they had reached a settlement following the appellate ruling, resolving a dispute over patents covering smart thermostat and HVAC control technology.
The case originated with a jury verdict in Ecobee's favor — or rather, a jury award to Ollnova against Ecobee — of more than $11.5 million, which the Federal Circuit threw out after finding fundamental problems with how the trial was conducted.
What Went Wrong at Trial
The Federal Circuit panel found that the Texas federal judge improperly combined four separate patents related to a heating and ventilation control system into a single infringement question on the jury verdict form, rather than requiring the jury to make individualized findings on each patent. The panel also found the jury received incomplete instructions on patent eligibility, compounding the problem with the collapsed verdict form.
By combining four distinct infringement allegations into one yes-or-no question, the verdict form made it impossible to determine which of the four patents the jury actually found infringed — a structural defect the appellate panel said undermined the reliability of the entire damages award, regardless of the underlying merits of Ollnova's infringement claims.
A Pattern the Federal Circuit Has Flagged Before
The ruling adds to a line of Federal Circuit decisions scrutinizing how patent infringement questions are presented to juries in multi-patent cases, an issue that has drawn increased appellate attention as patent holders increasingly bundle multiple related patents into single infringement suits to streamline litigation and reduce costs. When a single yes-or-no verdict question stands in for what should be separate findings on separate patents, appellate courts have repeatedly found the resulting verdict too ambiguous to support a damages award, since neither the parties nor a reviewing court can determine which specific infringement theory the jury credited.
Why the Parties Settled Rather Than Retry
Rather than proceed to a new trial on the vacated verdict, Ecobee and Ollnova elected to resolve the matter through settlement, a common outcome after an appellate court wipes out a jury award on procedural grounds rather than on the underlying merits. A retrial would have required both companies to relitigate infringement and damages from scratch — with the added uncertainty of how a properly structured, patent-by-patent verdict form might change the outcome — making a negotiated resolution the more predictable path for both sides. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed in court filings.
What It Means for Smart Thermostat and HVAC Controls Makers
The case is part of a broader wave of patent litigation across the smart thermostat and connected HVAC controls space, where established players and newer entrants have increasingly turned to patent enforcement as differentiated software and connectivity features become central to product competition. Smart thermostat makers have separately notched wins at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the International Trade Commission in related disputes this year, underscoring how active the patent landscape has become around connected HVAC controls specifically.
For HVAC manufacturers and contractors integrating third-party smart thermostats and controls into their product lines, the case is a reminder that the connected-controls layer of the industry — as opposed to the mechanical equipment itself — has become a genuine patent battleground, with infringement exposure a live consideration for any company building or reselling smart thermostat functionality.
A Costly Lesson in Trial Procedure
The size of the vacated award — more than $11.5 million — underscores how much is riding on the mechanics of how a multi-patent case is tried, not just on the substance of the infringement claims themselves. A verdict form that seemed procedurally convenient at trial ended up erasing an eight-figure jury award on appeal, a outcome that patent litigators are likely to cite as a cautionary example when advising clients on how to structure jury instructions and verdict forms in future multi-patent HVAC controls disputes.
The reversal also illustrates the financial risk multi-patent litigation carries for smaller connected-device makers specifically: an adverse appellate ruling on a technicality can erase years of litigation investment and force a company back to the negotiating table from a weaker position than if the verdict form had been structured correctly from the outset.
What Happens Next
With the settlement reached, the Texas federal court is expected to formally close out the case pending final paperwork from the parties. Neither Ecobee nor Ollnova has publicly detailed the settlement terms, and it remains unclear whether the resolution includes any ongoing licensing arrangement between the companies or simply ends the litigation with a lump-sum payment. The underlying Federal Circuit ruling on verdict-form structure, however, remains on the books and is likely to influence how future multi-patent HVAC controls infringement cases are tried, regardless of how this particular dispute concluded.
