Following summary judgment and jury verdicts finding infringement of three patents, the accused infringer appealed the grant of summary judgment and the district court’s denial of its motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). After the Federal Circuit reversed the denial, the patentee’s petition for rehearing en banc was granted. The court affirmed and reinstated the district court’s judgment, finding no error in denying the infringer’s respective JMOLs. 

As to the first patent, the court found that the critical claim term “analyzer server” meant that the server routine be separate from the client, as supported by a prior decision. It rejected the panel’s reliance on extrinsic evidence, stressing that credibility determinations of expert testimony are left to the jury. For the second patent, the court upheld the black box jury verdict of infringement and non-obviousness. The court explained that while the two prior art documents that the infringer cited did disclose all of the claimed elements, the court found no motivation to combine them. The earlier finding of no willful infringement was remanded based on the Supreme Court’s recent shift in the willfulness standard under the Halo decision.

Finally, the court found substantial evidence supporting patentability and non-obviousness of the third patent. Despite dissents relating to the law of obviousness, the majority stressed that it was not deciding “important legal questions about the inner working of the law of obviousness,” but rather was applying current law to the facts, limited to record evidence only.