Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01769/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01769-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

LONE STAR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS, 

LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL,

Defendant

ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2022-1769, 2022-2261

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 6:19-cv-00059-RWS, Judge 

Robert Schroeder, III.

______________________

Decided: December 20, 2024

______________________

JENNIFER ISHIMOTO, Banie & Ishimoto LLP, Palo Alto, 

CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. 

 VINAY VIJAY JOSHI, Amin Turocy & Watson, LLP, San 

Jose, CA, argued for defendant-appellant. Also 

represented by ANDREW TIMOTHY OLIVER. 

Case: 22-1769 Document: 76 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2024
LONE STAR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS, LLC v.

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL

2

 ______________________

Before DYK, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge.

Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC, (Lone Star) 

sued Asus Computer International and AsusTek Computer, 

Inc., (collectively, Asus) in the Eastern District of Texas, 

alleging Asus induced its customers to infringe certain 

claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,724,435 (’435 patent). A jury 

found the asserted claims were infringed and not proven to 

be invalid and awarded damages of $825,000. The district 

court ordered a new trial on damages, and the jury found 

that Asus owed $659,106.40. The district court denied 

Asus’s motions for judgment as a matter of law. Asus 

appeals, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1). We address each of Asus’s arguments in turn, 

and none is persuasive. We therefore affirm.

First, Asus argues that Lone Star lacks standing 

because, at trial, Lone Star failed to prove with written 

evidence that it owned the ’435 patent. We interpret this 

argument as a statutory standing argument. See 35 U.S.C. 

§ 261; Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. 

Corp., 925 F.3d 1225, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“whether a 

party possesses all substantial rights in a patent does not 

implicate [Article III] standing”).

Asus’s statutory standing argument is forfeited. 

Standing was not raised as an issue in the Joint Pretrial 

Order. “It goes without saying that a pre-trial order 

controls the scope and course of trial; a claim or issue not 

included in the order is waived, unless presented at trial 

without objection.” Arsement v. Spinnaker Expl. Co., 400 

F.3d 238, 245 (5th Cir. 2005). 

To the extent Asus raises an Article III standing 

challenge, that argument “cannot be waived or forfeited.” 

Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U.S. 658, 

Case: 22-1769 Document: 76 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2024
LONE STAR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS, LLC v.

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL

3

662–63 (2019). Lone Star’s witness, Mr. Rice, testified 

under oath at trial that Lone Star owns the ’435 patent. 

Asus never controverted that testimony, so on the facts of 

this case, Lone Star has satisfied Article III standing. See

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (“And at 

the final stage, those facts [to establish standing] (if 

controverted) must be ‘supported adequately by the 

evidence adduced at trial.’” (citation omitted)).

Second, Asus asks us to reduce or vacate the damages 

award because there was no evidence about the extent of 

use of the infringing feature. But Asus’s own expert 

witness provided survey testimony that 16.2% of all survey 

responders indicated that they practiced the claimed 

method using Asus’s products. We thus reject Asus’s 

argument.

Third, Asus contends that the damages award included 

non-accused products. This argument is also meritless. 

During discovery, Asus produced a spreadsheet in response 

to interrogatories seeking sales information regarding 

accused products. Both sides’ expert witnesses on damages 

relied on that spreadsheet to calculate damages. More 

specifically, both experts used the same royalty base (i.e., 

the number of infringing products), which came from 

Asus’s spreadsheet. Thus, the experts agreed on the 

number of accused products. These facts comport with the 

district court’s determination that Lone Star did not 

request damages for non-accused products and with Lone 

Star’s expert’s testimony that all products on the 

spreadsheet were infringed.

Fourth, Asus argues that the district court construed 

the claim term “individual color” inconsistently within the 

claims. The court, however, provided only one construction 

for “individual color” to the jury, and that construction was 

the construction that Asus proposed. Thus, the jury was 

given only one, consistent construction for the claim term 

“individual color.”

Case: 22-1769 Document: 76 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2024
LONE STAR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS, LLC v.

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL

4

Asus raises another variant of its claim construction 

argument: even though one claim construction was 

provided to the jury, there was “a secret construction that 

bound” the parties and their witnesses. Appellant’s Reply 

Br. 37. It would be a misnomer to refer to this argument

as raising a claim construction issue because Asus agrees 

that the construction provided to the jury “is correct.” 

Appellant’s Br. 63. Rather, Asus appears to be challenging 

the effect that the “secret construction” may have had on 

the presentation of the evidence. But even if we accept that 

a “secret construction” bound the parties, Asus has not 

raised any meaningful argument showing how it was 

harmed by the purported “secret construction.” Asserting, 

without more, that the alleged error is “not harmless, 

because it directly affects the infringement verdict” is 

simply too skeletal of an argument. Appellant’s Br. 72.

Fifth, Asus argues that substantial evidence does not 

support the jury’s finding of infringement. Asus challenges 

only claim limitation 1(e). This argument is forfeited

because it was not raised in Asus’s Rule 50(b) brief before 

the district court. 

Last, Asus contends that substantial evidence does not

support the jury’s finding of induced infringement. “[W]e 

have affirmed induced infringement verdicts based on 

circumstantial evidence of inducement (e.g., 

advertisements, user manuals) directed to a class of direct 

infringers (e.g., customers, end users) without requiring 

hard proof that any individual third-party direct infringer 

was actually persuaded to infringe by that material.” 

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, 

Inc., 843 F.3d 1315, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Lone Star 

adduced evidence of how Asus’s website and product 

manuals instruct users how to perform the infringing 

method. That evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s 

finding.

Case: 22-1769 Document: 76 Page: 4 Filed: 12/20/2024
LONE STAR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS, LLC v.

ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL

5

We have considered Asus’s remaining arguments and 

do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1769 Document: 76 Page: 5 Filed: 12/20/2024