{"id":1280,"date":"2016-10-07T20:30:51","date_gmt":"2016-10-08T00:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1280"},"modified":"2016-10-09T08:32:06","modified_gmt":"2016-10-09T12:32:06","slug":"internal-fight-over-role-of-appellate-court-reveals-substantial-difference-of-opinion-over-substantial-evidence-at-federal-circuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1280","title":{"rendered":"Internal Fight Over Role of Appellate Court Reveals Substantial Difference of Opinion over Substantial Evidence at Federal Circuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0Apple, Inc., v.\u00a0Samsung Electronics Co., Inc.<\/em>, [2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994] (October 7, 2016), the en banc<\/em> Federal Circuit completely undid the panel decision with respect to three patents, with the three original panel judges dissenting.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0district court granted summary judgment\u00a0that Samsung infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172, and jury found that the claims were not invalid. \u00a0The jury found that Samsung infringed\u00a0U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 and U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721, and that these patents were not invalid. \u00a0The district court denied Samsung’s motions for JMOL. \u00a0A panel of the Federal Circuit reversed. \u00a0On Apple’s petition for en banc review, the Federal Circuit granted the\u00a0petition “to affirm our understanding\u00a0of the appellate function as limited to deciding\u00a0the issues raised on appeal by the parties, deciding\u00a0these issues only on the basis of the record made below,\u00a0and as requiring appropriate deference be applied to the\u00a0review of fact findings.”<\/p>\n

The \u2019647 Patent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The jury found that Samsung infringed the ‘647 patent and\u00a0awarded Apple $98,690,625. Because there was\u00a0substantial evidence to support the jury\u2019s verdict, the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed. \u00a0The Court found that the panel used extra-record extrinsic evidence to modify the agreed upon and unappealed construction. \u00a0The\u00a0Court pointed out that the claim construction was not appealed, and it did not agree with the Panel that that Apple agreed to the panel\u2019s change to the\u00a0construction. \u00a0Samsung did not appeal the validity of the ‘647 patent<\/p>\n

The \u2019721 Patent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The\u00a0jury found that the ‘721 patent was\u00a0infringed and would not have been obvious.\u00a0Because there was substantial evidence\u00a0to support the jury\u2019s underlying fact findings, and that\u00a0these fact findings supported the conclusion that Samsung\u00a0failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the claims of the ‘721 patent\u00a0would have been obvious. \u00a0The Court noted its restricted role on appeal:<\/p>\n

Our job is not to review whether Samsung\u2019s\u00a0losing position was also supported by substantial\u00a0evidence or to weigh the relative strength of Samsung\u2019s\u00a0evidence against Apple\u2019s evidence. We are limited to\u00a0determining whether there was substantial evidence for\u00a0the jury\u2019s findings, on the entirety of the record.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The ‘172 Patent<\/strong><\/p>\n

The district court granted summary judgment of infringement of the ‘172 patent, and the jury found the patent not invalid, and awarded\u00a0$17,943,750 in damages. \u00a0Samsung appealed the denial of its JMOL. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found substantial evidence supporting the jury verdict, and affirmed. \u00a0The Court further commented on its role as an appellate court:<\/p>\n

Even in cases in which a court concludes that a reasonable\u00a0jury could have found some facts differently, the\u00a0verdict must be sustained if it is supported by substantial\u00a0evidence on the record that was before the jury. But as an\u00a0appellate court, it is beyond our role to reweigh the evidence\u00a0or consider what the record might have supported,\u00a0or investigate potential arguments that were not meaningfully\u00a0raised. \u00a0Our review is limited to whether fact\u00a0findings made and challenged on appeal are supported by\u00a0substantial evidence in the record, and if so, whether\u00a0those fact findings support the legal conclusion of obviousness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Federal Circuit\u00a0affirmed and reinstated the district court judgment as
\nto the \u2019647, \u2019721, and \u2019172 patents, and well as the\u00a0portions of the panel decision pertaining to four other patents.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0Apple, Inc., v.\u00a0Samsung Electronics Co., Inc., [2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994] (October 7, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit completely undid the panel decision with respect to three patents, with the three original panel judges dissenting. The\u00a0district court granted summary judgment\u00a0that Samsung … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-infringement","category-validity"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1280","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1280"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1280\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1281,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1280\/revisions\/1281"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}