The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to revive a $20 million patent verdict against Google, effectively ending EcoFactor’s long-running fight over the technology behind the Nest smart thermostat.
According to Reuters reporting by Blake Brittain, the justices issued a one-sentence order Monday, refusing to hear EcoFactor’s appeal of a lower court decision that had overturned the jury’s 2022 ruling. The Silicon Valley energy-management company had accused Google of misusing its patented methods to automatically reduce home energy use during peak demand.
The decision leaves intact a May ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which threw out the damages verdict after determining that EcoFactor’s expert testimony on royalties “was not based upon sufficient facts or data.” The appellate judges ordered a new trial on damages — one that will now never take place.
A rare setback for patent plaintiffs
EcoFactor, based in Palo Alto, California, first sued Google in 2020 in a Texas federal court, arguing that Nest thermostats violated its proprietary energy optimization algorithms. A jury later sided with the startup, awarding just over $20 million in damages.
But after an unusual full-court review, the Federal Circuit reversed course. It said the trial judge had failed to explain why the damages expert’s calculations were admissible and agreed with Google that the numbers lacked evidentiary support.
Google’s vice president of litigation, Cassandra Knight, welcomed the outcome, saying the company “will continue to set the record straight” and strongly rejects EcoFactor’s claims.
Big Tech’s broader interest
The dispute drew interest across Silicon Valley. Apple, Tesla, and Intel filed briefs supporting Google’s position, warning that inflated patent damages have become a strategic weapon for smaller plaintiffs. Apple argued that some companies “manufacture evidence” through small licensing deals designed to inflate royalty rates later.
EcoFactor had urged the Supreme Court to intervene, calling the Federal Circuit’s reversal “an extraordinary example of appellate overreach.” The company claimed the court had violated the Constitution by “substituting its view of the evidence for that of the jury.”
The high court’s refusal to take the case effectively ends EcoFactor’s challenge, marking a victory for Google — and, by extension, for other tech giants seeking tighter judicial scrutiny of patent damages.
What’s next for EcoFactor
EcoFactor, which continues to sell smart home energy-efficiency software to utilities and homeowners, has not yet commented on the Supreme Court’s decision.
The case, EcoFactor Inc. v. Google LLC, became a closely watched example of how U.S. courts are narrowing the path for small technology companies to win large verdicts against industry leaders — a trend that may discourage similar challenges in the future.
