By Bryan K. Wheelock, Principal
In Apple, Inc., v. Samsung 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 district court granted summary judgment that Samsung infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172, and the jury found that the claims were not invalid. The jury found that Samsung infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 and U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721, and that these patents were not invalid. The district court denied Samsung’s motions for JMOL. A panel of the Federal Circuit reversed. On Apple’s petition for en banc review, the Federal Circuit granted the petition “to affirm our understanding of the appellate function as limited to deciding the issues raised on appeal by the parties, deciding these issues only on the basis of the record made below, and as requiring appropriate deference be applied to the review of fact findings.”
The ’647 Patent
The jury found that Samsung infringed the ‘647 patent and awarded Apple $98,690,625. Because there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, the en banc Federal Circuit affirmed. The Court found that the panel used extra-record extrinsic evidence to modify the agreed upon and unappealed construction. The Court pointed out that the claim construction was not appealed, and it did not agree with the Panel that Apple agreed to the panel’s change to the construction. Samsung did not appeal the validity of the ‘647 patent
The ’721 Patent
The jury found that the ‘721 patent was infringed and would not have been obvious. Because there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s underlying fact findings, and that these fact findings supported the conclusion that Samsung failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the claims of the ‘721 patent would have been obvious. The Court noted its restricted role on appeal:
Our job is not to review whether Samsung’s losing position was also supported by substantial evidence or to weigh the relative strength of Samsung’s evidence against Apple’s evidence. We are limited to determining whether there was substantial evidence for the jury’s findings, on the entirety of the record.
The ‘172 Patent
The district court granted summary judgment of infringement of the ‘172 patent, and the jury found the patent not invalid, and awarded $17,943,750 in damages. Samsung appealed the denial of its JMOL. The Federal Circuit found substantial evidence supporting the jury verdict, and affirmed. The Court further commented on its role as an appellate court:
Even in cases in which a court concludes that a reasonable jury could have found some facts differently, the verdict must be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record that was before the jury. But as an appellate court, it is beyond our role to reweigh the evidence or consider what the record might have supported, or investigate potential arguments that were not meaningfully raised. Our review is limited to whether fact findings made and challenged on appeal are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and if so, whether those fact findings support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
The Federal Circuit affirmed and reinstated the district court judgment as to the ’647, ’721, and ’172 patents, as well as the portions of the panel decision pertaining to four other patents.