infringement is a question of fact, reviewed for substantial evidence when tried to a jury.
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Of conflicting expert testimony:
Both of these factual disputes were properly for the jury to decide. The jury was
entitled to credit Cox’s experts over Verizon’s experts and thus it was not unreasonable
for the jury to find that claim 1 of the ’481 patent was not infringed. See Kinetic
Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Group, Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(finding that a jury is at liberty to accept or reject expert testimony); accord Aldridge v.
Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 789 F.2d 1061, 1065 (4th Cir. 1986), aff’d en banc, 814 F.2d 157
(4th Cir. 1987).
The bottom line:
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Verizon’s motion
for a new trial on all issues based on Cox’s allegedly improper arguments regarding
claim scope. We also affirm the district court’s denial of both parties’ motions for JMOL
of validity or invalidity and Verizon’s alternative request for a new trial on validity of the
Feature Patents. Finally, we affirm the district court’s denial of Verizon’s request for
JMOL on infringement of claim 1 of the ’481 patent and its request for a new trial on
infringement of the asserted claims of the Quality of Service Patent.