TECSEC, INC. v. ADOBE INC., Appeal No. 2019-2192 (Fed. Cir. October 23, 2020).  Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge O’Grady).  (§101 Eligibility Damages)


TecSec sued Adobe for patent infringement of claims directed to a multi-layer encryption system and method.  The district court granted Adobe’s motion in limine, preventing TecSec from presenting any evidence at trial of Adobe’s intent to induce infringement for a period between 2011 and 2013.  During this period, there was a pending claim construction order under which both parties had stipulated there was no direct infringement by Adobe.

TecSec eventually prevailed on direct infringement and was awarded $1.75M by the jury.  However, the district court reduced this damage award to zero for lack of evidence of real damages.

TecSec appealed the exclusion of evidence of Adobe’s intent to induce infringement and the reduction of the damage award.  Adobe cross-appealed a previous denial of its summary judgment for ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.


Did the district court err in excluding evidence of intent, reducing the damage award to zero, and denying summary judgment of §101 ineligibility?  (continue reading)

Summary by:  Brian Repper

To view additional Federal Circuit decisions, please visit our Federal Circuit Case Summaries page.