On August 31, 2026, the Federal Circuit reissued a modified precedential opinion in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2024-1822 (Stoll, J., joined by Lourie, J., and District Judge Oetken, sitting by designation). The original opinion issued April 28, 2026, and was modified after a petition for rehearing. The appeal is from the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:21-cv-00448-JRG (Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap).
The trial result
Constellation asserted nine claims across four patents covering non-uniform QAM constellations used in ATSC 3.0 (protocol A/322) televisions: claims 17, 21, 24, and 28 of U.S. Patent 8,842,761; claim 5 of 10,693,700; claims 21 and 23 of 11,019,509; and claims 24 and 44 of 11,018,922. The district court granted summary judgment that all nine were eligible under section 101. A jury found the claims not invalid, found infringement by LG televisions (chips from LG or Realtek), found willfulness, and awarded $1,684,469 in past damages at $6.75 per television. The amended final judgment (April 26, 2024) added an ongoing royalty at the same rate.
The eligibility split
The court split the claims into two groups. The optimization claims (the '761 and '700 patents) recite a geometrically spaced constellation "optimized for capacity using parallel decode capacity." Representative claim 17 of the '761 patent. Those claims are directed to the abstract, result-oriented idea of optimizing a constellation for capacity, without a meaningful process or constraint. Summary judgment of eligibility on those five claims is vacated and remanded.
The constellation claims (the '509 and '922 patents) recite specific non-uniform constellations, including overlapping point locations in the '509 patent. Representative claim 21 of the '509 patent. Those claims are directed to a concrete implementation of a technological improvement, so they pass Alice step one. Eligibility of claims 21 and 23 of the '509 patent and claims 24 and 44 of the '922 patent is affirmed.
Infringement and damages
The court affirmed denial of JMOL of non-infringement. Mixing a standard-based read for some limitations with a direct comparison for others of the same claim is not forbidden. It also affirmed denial of JMOL of no damages and denial of LG's motion to exclude Constellation's damages expert (Dr. Sullivan), including the use of Zenith licenses on a built-in apportionment theory. At oral argument, LG argued for the first time that ineligibility of some claims required vacating the damages award. That argument was forfeited because it was not in the opening brief.
What it means in practice
Claiming "optimize X for Y" without locking the claim to a specific structure or process remains a 101 problem. Claiming the specific constellation (or other concrete output) that the process produced is a different case. On this record, a split eligibility ruling did not automatically unwind a lump-sum jury award, because the appellant did not brief that consequence.
What to watch next
How Judge Gilstrap handles the remanded optimization claims on eligibility, and whether either side treats the surviving constellation claims as enough to support the existing royalty without a new damages trial.