EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

  1. November 13, 2024

    Google Says $20M Thermostat IP Verdict Was 'Manufactured'

    Google is making its argument to the full Federal Circuit that a $20 million verdict the tech giant was hit with in the Western District of Texas was "manufactured" by an expert hired by a competing smart-home energy startup.

  2. September 26, 2024

    Full Fed. Circ. Looks To Clarify Damages In Google Case

    The full Federal Circuit has agreed to review EcoFactor's $20 million infringement award against Google, a move that attorneys say should provide much-needed guidance for both judges and parties when calculating damages.

  3. September 25, 2024

    Full Fed. Circ. To Tackle Patent Damages In $20M Google Case

    The full Federal Circuit said Wednesday it will review a panel's holding that Google must pay EcoFactor $20 million for infringing a smart thermostat patent, after the tech giant said the court has allowed patent owners to "manufacture a royalty rate."

  4. August 16, 2024

    Fed. Circ. Urged Not To Rehear $20M Google Royalty Ruling

    EcoFactor Inc. urged the Federal Circuit to reject Google LLC's bid for a full court rehearing of its split panel decision to uphold a $20 million patent infringement damages award in EcoFactor's favor, arguing that Google is looking to create a "rigid rule" that will only enable more patent infringement.

  5. July 18, 2024

    Google Warns Fed. Circ. Panel Backed Manipulating Damages

    The Federal Circuit's decision to make Google pay EcoFactor $20 million for infringing a smart thermostat patent clears patent owners to "manufacture a royalty rate" and ignore both market realities and apportionment, Google told the full court in a bid for rehearing.

  6. June 03, 2024

    Split Fed. Circ. Backs EcoFactor's $20M Trial Win Over Google

    The Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed that Google should pay EcoFactor $20 million for infringing its smart thermostat patent, but one judge took issue with allowing the damages to stand, saying her colleagues' ruling "at best muddles our precedent and at worst contradicts it."