[Case Summary] EcoFactor v. Google (CAFC En Banc, 2025)
— When Expert Testimony Fails: Lessons for Licensing Practitioners —
In May 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), sitting en banc, vacated a district court’s damages award in a patent infringement case brought by EcoFactor against Google. The core issue was the admissibility of expert testimony on damages. This decision offers valuable lessons for attorneys involved in license negotiations and patent litigation.
1. Background
EcoFactor owns patents related to smart thermostat technologies. It sued Google for infringing those patents through its “Nest” products. Though there was no license between the two, EcoFactor cited earlier lump-sum licenses with third parties to assert that a royalty of $X per unit was established.
2. District Court
EcoFactor’s expert argued that past lump-sum payments corresponded to a per-unit rate of $X. The jury accepted this theory and awarded roughly $20 million.
3. CAFC Decision
The CAFC reversed. The expert’s opinion was based on EcoFactor’s unilateral belief and lacked factual support. Some license agreements explicitly disclaimed any agreement on per-unit rates. The court ruled that such an opinion should not have been presented to the jury. The district court failed in its “gatekeeping” role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
4. The Gatekeeper Role
Judges must ensure that expert testimony presented to a jury is reliable and grounded in facts. This is especially critical in jury trials, where experts can heavily influence lay opinions. EcoFactor reinforces this responsibility.
5. What Comes Next
The case was remanded for a new trial on damages. Infringement findings were not disturbed. EcoFactor may attempt to offer new testimony or reach a settlement.
6. Practical Tips for Counsel
For licensor-side counsel:
If the lump-sum payment reflects a per-unit basis, state the per-unit rate and mutual agreement explicitly. Contracts with vague or one-sided statements will have little value as future benchmarks.
For licensee-side counsel:
When reviewing prior deals, verify whether there was actual mutual agreement on the per-unit rate, not just a stated amount. Lack of clear consensus may undermine or refute claims of established royalty later.
Conclusion
This decision highlights the importance of evidence-based expert testimony and precise contract drafting. For licensing professionals, EcoFactor v. Google offers a timely reminder: clarity and factual grounding are key to enforceability.
Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or relying on this article.
（Reference）
Wiggin and Dana (US Law Firm) Website
https://www.wiggin.com/publication/judges-as-gatekeepers-of-damages-evidence-ecofactor-inc-v-google-llc-case-no-2023-1101-federal-circuit-en-banc-may-21-2025/