September 3, 2025
Authored and Edited by Ryan V. McDonnell; Erik R. Puknys; *Leopold Schneider
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.
on-sale bar, prior use (35 USC § 102), America Invents Act (AIA), infringement, damages, en banc
*Leopold Schneider is a Legal Research Assistant at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2025 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.