{"id":308,"date":"2016-01-08T12:15:53","date_gmt":"2016-01-08T17:15:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=308"},"modified":"2016-01-09T16:46:30","modified_gmt":"2016-01-09T21:46:30","slug":"court-cant-change-the-claim-construct-after-a-verdict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=308","title":{"rendered":"Court Can’t Change the Claim Construction After a Verdict"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple Inc.<\/em>, [2014-1437, 2014-1485] (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the\u00a0trial court\u2019s JMOL determination of no invalidity of U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 because it was based on a post-verdict reconstruction of the claims.<\/p>\n

The jury found the claims invalid, but on JMOL\u00a0the\u00a0trial court determined that, although its earlier construction of computing means does not specifically provide for a complex multiplier, a complex multiplier was nevertheless necessary because expert witnesses from both sides agreed that complex multiplies are part of the structure of a first computing means.\u00a0 Since it was undisputed that such complex multipliers are absent from the prior art, the trial court\u00a0granted JMOL that the claims were not invalid.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit agreed with Apple that the district court\u2019s postverdict addition of a complex multiplier requirement was a new claim construction, which the district court may not issue at the JMOL stage.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that it is\u00a0too late at the JMOL stage to argue for or adopt a new and more detailed interpretation of the claim language and test the jury verdict by that new and more detailed interpretation.\u00a0\u00a0At the\u00a0JMOL stage, the question for the trial court is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the jury\u2019s verdict under the issued construction<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit rejected Wi-Lan’s argument that this was a permissible clarification, rather that impermissible reconstruction.\u00a0The Federal Circuit said that a trial court may \u201cadjust constructions post-trial if the court merely elaborates on a meaning inherent in the previous construction.\u201d\u00a0 Clarification is permissible where it only makes plane what should have been obvious to the jury.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that the district court\u2019s JMOL of no invalidity was based on a reconstruction of the claims that went far beyond clarifying a meaning inherent in the construction or making plain what should have been obvious to the jury. Instead, the post-verdict reconstruction altered the scope of the original construction and undermined Apple\u2019s invalidity case post-verdict.<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple Inc., [2014-1437, 2014-1485] (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the\u00a0trial court\u2019s JMOL determination of no invalidity of U.S. Patent No. RE37,802 because it was based on a post-verdict reconstruction of the claims. The jury … 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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-construction","category-jmol"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/308","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=308"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/308\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":312,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/308\/revisions\/312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}