In Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., 879 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the CAFC affirmed a district court’s decision to not add a judgement of invalidity to an existing non-infringement judgement when the jury failed to answer invalidity questions because the verdict form did not require it. The CAFC held that the jury properly followed a verdict form that included a “stop instruction,” which instructed jurors to only answer invalidity questions if they first answered “yes” to questions regarding whether the asserted patents covering spinal implants were infringed. The CAFC reasoned that because the accused infringer failed to timely object to the verdict form, the jury, having answered “no” to the infringement questions, was not required to answer questions regarding invalidity.