Digest of Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2014-1437, -1485 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2016) (precedential). On appeal from E.D. Tex. Before Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes.
Procedural Posture: Plaintiff patentee appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and for a new trial on infringement, and Defendant accused infringer cross-appealed the district court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of no invalidity. CAFC affirmed the district court’s denial of JMOL and for a new trial on infringement, and reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL of no invalidity.
- Infringement: With respect to whether claim limitations were required to be performed in a particular order, the intrinsic record required that the claimed symbols be modulated according to an invertible randomized spreading before being combined for transmission. The district court did not err in denying the JMOL of infringement and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial on infringement. Apple’s products had a structure different from the claimed invention because Apple’s products did not randomize the symbols before combining them.
- Doctrine of Equivalents: It was reasonable for the jury to credit Apple’s expert testimony, and substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict that the order difference between Apple’s products and the claimed invention was not insubstantial.
- Invalidity: The district court erred in granting JMOL of no invalidity because the district court impermissibly based the grant of JMOL on a post-verdict claim construction that required randomization to be done using “complex” multipliers. CAFC found that the addition of the “complex multiplier” requirement went far beyond clarifying a meaning inherent in the pre-verdict claim construction or making plain what should have been obvious to the jury.