直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Reverses JMOL of No On-Sale Bar by Finding Abuse of Discretion

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.

Tags

on-sale bar, prior use (35 USC § 102), America Invents Act (AIA), infringement, damages, en banc

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Palo Alto, CA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Ryan V. McDonnell
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4167
Email
Erik R. Puknys
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6644
Email

*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.

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP