The district court vacated the jury’s verdict of invalidity, holding that a reasonable jury would have understood that the claims required complex multipliers. Although the court acknowledged that its construction of the term at issue “does not specifically provide for a complex multiplier,” the court held that a complex multiplier was required because “throughout the trial, both sides took the position that the complex multiplier … was reasonably included in the Court’s construction.”
The Federal Circuit reversed. The court held that the district court’s addition of a “complex multiplier” requirement amounted to a new claim construction, which is impermissible at the JMOL stage. The court noted that a trial court may adjust claim constructions post-trial to clarify a meaning inherent in the previous construction, or make plain what should have been obvious to the jury. However, the court may not go so far as to adopt a new and more detailed interpretation of claim language: “[a]t the JMOL stage, the question for the trial court is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict under the issued construction.” In this case, the Federal Circuit held that because the district court acknowledged that its original construction did not require a complex multiplier, adding such a requirement post-verdict impermissibly altered the scope of the original construction. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s JMOL determination of no invalidity.
Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2014-1437, 2014-1485 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2016)