In an Opinion by Circuit Judge Reyna on April 25, 2014 in Apple Inc. v. Motorola Mobility Inc.,Appeal Nos. 12-1548, 12-1549, a Federal Circuit panel comprising Chief Judge Rader and Circuit Judges Prost and Reyna reversed and remanded for trial the summary judgment decisions, following a Daubert hearing, of U.S. Circuit Judge Posner (sitting by designation in the Northern District of Illinois) finding the testimony of both parties’ damages experts was inadmissible and cancelling a planned trial in 2012 on the ground that neither side could prove it was entitled to damages. The Federal Circuit panel found it was the duty of the jury, not the judge, “to weigh facts, evaluate the correctness of conclusions, impose its own preferred methodology, or judge credibility, including the credibility of one expert over another.” Id. at 40. The majority panel also affirmed Judge Posner’s summary judgment decision to bar Motorola from seeking an injunction on a standard essential patent. However, in a notable part of the majority panel’s Opinion, the majority panel found that “To the extent that the district court applied a per se rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, it erred. While Motorola’s FRAND commitments are certainly criteria relevant to its entitlement to an injunction, we see no reason to create, as some amici urge, a separate rule or analytical framework for addressing injunctions for FRAND-committed patents. The framework laid out by the Supreme Court in eBay, as interpreted by subsequent decisions of this court, provides ample strength and flexibility for addressing the unique aspects of FRAND committed patents and industry standards in general.” Id. at 71. Chief Judge Rader dissented only on this issue, asserting that there was evidence that Apple may have been unwilling to pay a FRAND rate and Motorola should have been given an opportunity to prove that at trial.