Summary: Jury finding of noninfringement based on whether substantial evidence provided to establish finding.

Case: InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Comms., Inc., No. 2013-1201 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2014) (precedential).On appeal from C.D.Cal. Before Rader, Lourie, and O’Malley.

Procedural Posture: Patent holder InTouch Technologies, Inc. appealed final judgment of non-infringement and invalidity and denial of motions for judgment as a matter of law. CAFC affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded.

  • Claim Construction: Construction of claim terms “arbitrator/arbitrating” and “call back mechanism” was affirmed. The district court’s construction was based on the context of the language of the claim, the specification, and the prosecution history.
  • Infringement: The jury reasonably could have found that defendant’s system did not meet the limitations of the patent claims, as provided by expert testimony. The court does not decide what evidence seems more persuasive, only whether there was substantial evidence that the jury could predicate its non-infringement judgment on, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
  • Prior Art Invalidity: District court erred in finding patents invalid because defendant’s expert testimony was not substantial enough to support an obviousness finding. The expert testimony was merely impermissible hindsight because it 1) failed to identify sufficient reasons or motivations to combine the asserted prior art references; 2) failed to focus on the relevant time frame of 2001; and 3) failed to consider any objective evidence of nonobviousness.