Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01562/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01562-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
McAfee, Inc.
Appellee
TVIIM, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TVIIM, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MCAFEE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1562

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:13-cv-04545-HSG, 

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: March 21, 2017

______________________ 

JOHN J. SHAEFFER, Fox Rothschild, LLP, Los Angeles, 

CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

JEFFREY H. GRANT; WILLIAM A. RUDY, Denver, CO.

JOSEPH J. MUELLER, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale 

and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendantappellee. Also represented by RICHARD WELLS O’NEILL, 

SARAH B. PETTY; NINA S. TALLON, MICHAEL WOLIN, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/21/2017
2 TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and REYNA,

Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

TVIIM, LLC (“TVIIM”) sued McAfee, Inc. (“McAfee”) 

in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 

6,889,168 (“’168 patent”). A jury determined that McAfee 

did not infringe the ’168 patent and that the ’168 patent 

was invalid. After the jury verdict, TVIIM filed motions

for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and for a new 

trial. The district court denied both motions, and TVIIM 

filed this appeal challenging the jury verdict and the 

district court’s denial of its post-verdict motions. We 

affirm because substantial evidence supports the jury’s 

findings of non-infringement and invalidity under a 

uniform construction of the relevant claim terms, and the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new 

trial. 

BACKGROUND

1. The ’168 Patent

The ’168 patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for 

Assessing the Security of a Computer.” It describes “a 

security system which identifies security vulnerabilities 

and discrepancies for a computing system.” ’168 patent, 

col. 1, ll. 65–67. The ’168 patent both identifies potential 

security threats to a computer and, under certain conditions, recommends action to a user to stop the threat. 

Four claims of the ’168 patent are relevant to this appeal. Independent claim 1 recites:

A security system for a computer apparatus, 

wherein said computer apparatus includes a 

processor and system memory, said security 

system comprising:

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/21/2017
TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 3

at least one security module which under direction from the processor accesses and analyzes 

selected portions of the computer apparatus to 

identify vulnerabilities;

at least one utility module which under the direction from the processor, performs various utility 

functions with regards to the computer apparatus in response to the identified vulnerabilities; and

a security system memory which contains security 

information for performing the analysis of the 

computer apparatus.

’168 patent, col. 10, l. 65 to col. 11, l. 10 (disputed terms 

emphasized). 

Dependent claim 7 recites:

The security system of claim 1 wherein the security modules include at least one of . . . an integrity checking module which analyzes files in the 

system memory to identify system vulnerabilities; 

a network checking module which analyzes the 

computer apparatus to identify vulnerabilities 

created as a result of the computer apparatus 

connecting with a data network; and

a password checking module which analyzes 

passwords for users of the computer apparatus 

to identify vulnerabilities.

Id. col. 11, ll. 25–46 (disputed term emphasized). 

Dependent claim 9 recites: “The security system of 

claim 7 wherein the system memory comprises a list of 

known vulnerabilities which may be employed by the 

integrity checking module.” Id. col. 11, ll. 62–64.

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/21/2017
4 TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 

Finally, independent claim 11 recites:

A method of providing a security assessment for a 

computer system which includes a system 

memory, comprising the steps of:

providing a security subsystem in the computer 

system such that functionality of the security 

subsystem is directed through a processor for 

the computer system, wherein the security performs steps comprising:

identifying a configuration of the system;

accessing the system memory and performing at 

least one procedure to provide a security assessment for at least one aspect of the computer 

system;

as a result of any vulnerabilities discovered in the 

assessment, identifying corrective measures to 

be taken with regards to the computer system;

reporting the discovered vulnerability and the 

identified corrective measures; and

upon receiving an appropriate command, initiating the corrective measures.

Id. col. 12, ll. 1–18 (disputed terms emphasized). 

2. McAfee

McAfee developed “Program Updates” for Microsoft 

Windows users to protect software programs against new 

security threats. Program Updates detects and installs 

updates for numerous non-Windows programs such as 

Apple iTunes and Adobe Acrobat. To do so, it scans a 

user’s computer to determine whether any of the nonWindows programs are installed. If it detects such a 

program, Program Updates makes two determinations: 

(1) whether the National Vulnerability Database (“NVD”)

lists any vulnerabilities in the currently installed version 

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/21/2017
TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 5

of that program; and (2) whether an update is available. 

If an update is available, Program Updates will install the 

update.

Prior to installing an update, Program Updates does 

not provide users with a detailed report of security 

threats; rather, it tells the user whether an update is 

“Critical” or merely “Recommended.” J.A. 2044–46, 3338.

If an update is available, Program Updates will install the

available update whether or not the NVD lists any known 

vulnerabilities. By contrast, if no software update is

available, Program Updates will not take action even if it 

detects a vulnerability. Without an available update, 

Program Updates will not provide users with any information about a detected vulnerability. J.A. 2047–48. To 

summarize, the presence of a known vulnerability is 

irrelevant to whether Program Updates installs an update. 

3. Prior Art

At trial, McAfee argued that two prior art references 

anticipated the ’168 patent and, in the alternative, that 

their combination would have rendered the ’168 patent 

obvious. 

The first reference, HostGUARD, is a software program developed by several named inventors of the ’168 

patent. HostGUARD first detects computer security 

threats and then reports them to the user. J.A. 1090, 

3796–97. These detailed reports include file names and 

locations, the particular nature of the vulnerability, and 

steps the user can take to combat the threat. HostGUARD requires the user to decide whether to take 

corrective action. Thus, the user (not HostGUARD itself) 

takes any desired corrective action. J.A. 3796.

The second reference, System Security Scanner (“S3”),

is a “security assessment tool” that “evaluates system 

vulnerabilities from the inside.” J.A. 3799. S3 allows a 

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/21/2017
6 TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 

user to select which specific vulnerabilities to assess and

then provides a “detailed description” of detected vulnerabilities to the user. J.A. 3816, 3801, 3836. For example, it 

offers a “long description” report that identifies “bugs” 

that create exploitable weaknesses in the system. J.A. 

2610–11; see also J.A. 2293 (testimony that S3 provides 

users with reports on “specific vulnerabilities found on 

specific computers”). S3 does not fix vulnerabilities itself; 

rather, it requires a user to open a new window and take 

corrective action. 

4. District Court Proceedings

TVIIM sued McAfee in 2013, alleging that Program 

Updates infringed the ’168 patent. McAfee counterclaimed for declarations of non-infringement, invalidity, 

and inequitable conduct.

McAfee moved for summary judgment that HostGUARD anticipated the asserted claims of the ’168 patent. In its motion, McAfee argued that all claim terms 

should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. In its 

opposition, TVIIM asked the district court to construe

only one term: “vulnerability.” The district court denied 

McAfee’s motion on anticipation because material issues 

of fact remained for trial. The district court also ruled 

that “vulnerability” should “have its plain and ordinary 

meaning and is not limited in scope to ‘pre-existing’ 

security problems or vulnerabilities.” J.A. 567. The court 

then asked for supplemental briefing on the plain and 

ordinary meaning of “vulnerability.” The parties agreed 

that a “vulnerability” is an “exploitable weakness in a 

computer system.” J.A. 633. The court adopted that 

construction and asked if it needed to construe any other 

terms. Both parties said no further construction was 

necessary. 

The case went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict 

that: (1) McAfee did not infringe the ’168 patent; (2) the 

’168 patent was invalid; and (3) TVIIM did not obtain the 

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/21/2017
TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 7

’168 patent through inequitable conduct. The jury’s 

general verdict of invalidity did not distinguish between 

obviousness and anticipation. The inequitable conduct 

issue is not subject to this appeal.

TVIIM filed motions for JMOL and a new trial, arguing that the jury had rendered an inconsistent verdict. 

According to TVIIM, the jury could not have arrived at 

both a non-infringement and invalidity determination 

using a single construction of three claim terms: “as a 

result of/in response to”; “various utility functions”; and 

“reporting the discovered vulnerabilities.” TVIIM concedes that it did not seek construction of any of these 

terms before or during trial. Opening Br. at 70.

The district court denied TVIIM’s motions. It found 

that the jury’s verdict was not inconsistent because substantial evidence supported both a non-infringement and 

invalidity verdict under a single construction of all three 

claim terms. J.A. 6–8. 

TVIIM timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review denials of motions for JMOL and motions 

for new trial under the law of the regional circuit—here, 

the Ninth Circuit. InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO 

Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The

Ninth Circuit reviews denials of JMOL de novo. Harper 

v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008). 

In the Ninth Circuit, the district court grants JMOL when 

“the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, 

and that conclusion is contrary to the jury’s verdict.” Id.

(quotation marks and citation omitted). A district court 

must uphold a jury’s verdict “if it is supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence adequate to support the 

jury’s conclusion, even if it is also possible to draw a 

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/21/2017
8 TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 

contrary conclusion.” Id. (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence 

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support 

a conclusion.” Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. 

FSI, 546 F.3d 991, 1000 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Whether a claim is anticipated is a 

question of fact, MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. Ricoh Ams. 

Corp., 847 F.3d 1363, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017), as is the 

question of infringement, Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. 

Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The Ninth Circuit reviews the denial of a motion for 

new trial for abuse of discretion. Incalza v. Fendi N. Am., 

Inc., 479 F.3d 1005, 1013 (9th Cir. 2007). It reverses the 

denial only if the record lacks any evidence supporting the 

verdict or if the district court makes a mistake of law. 

Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 

2007).

DISCUSSION

1. Non-Infringement And Invalidity

Claim terms must be construed the same way for the 

purpose of determining invalidity and infringement. 

Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 

1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A district court’s determination that a claim term has a “‘plain and ordinary meaning’ 

may be inadequate when [the claim] term has more than 

one ‘ordinary meaning.’” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond 

Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 

2008). 

We first address TVIIM’s argument that the jury rendered an inconsistent verdict of infringement and invalidity because the claim terms “as a result of/in response to,” 

“various utility functions,” and “reporting the discovered 

vulnerabilities” have more than one ordinary meaning. 

We note that TVIIM did not seek construction of any of 

the three terms at trial. It never presented multiple

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/21/2017
TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 9

ordinary meanings of the three terms or showed that they

are open to varying interpretations. We are not persuaded that any of the three terms has multiple ordinary 

meanings, and we discern no error in the district court 

submitting them to the jury without specific instruction. 

TVIIM argues that it is not seeking a new claim construction of any terms on appeal. To be sure, it has waived any 

new construction. “[A] party may not introduce new claim 

construction arguments on appeal or alter the scope of the 

claim construction positions it took below. Moreover, 

litigants waive their right to present new claim construction disputes if they are raised for the first time after 

trial.” Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 

1349, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Thus, 

TVIIM “cannot be allowed to create a new claim construction dispute following the close of the jury trial.” Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 694 (Fed. Cir. 

2008).

We next address whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of non-infringement based on

using the same construction it used for its invalidity 

verdict. See Harper, 533 F.3d at 1021. We conclude that 

the jury verdict is supported by substantial evidence. 

A. “As A Result Of/In Response To”

There was no dispute at trial that the term “as a result of/in response to” requires a causal relationship 

between corrective action and the discovered vulnerability. McAfee’s expert Dr. Rubin testified that Program 

Updates installs software updates regardless of whether a 

vulnerability exists and that the only requirement for 

update installation is the availability of an update. J.A. 

2444 (“The only determining factor whether Program 

Updates will update software is if there’s an update 

available.”). In other words, the presence of a vulnerability is irrelevant to whether Program Updates installs a 

software update. As a result, with Program Updates 

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/21/2017
10 TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 

there is no causal relationship between corrective action 

and the discovered vulnerability. We find Dr. Rubin’s 

testimony on this point to be substantial evidence supporting the jury’s non-infringement verdict. 

We also find that substantial evidence supports the 

jury verdict of invalidity based on anticipation. Dr. Rubin 

testified that the prior art anticipated the ’168 patent by 

initiating corrective action in response to a detected 

vulnerability. See, e.g., J.A. 2476 (explaining how HostGUARD discloses the “as a result of any vulnerabilities” 

limitation of claim 11); J.A. 2494 (concluding that S3 

anticipates claim 1). TVIIM insists that the jury failed to 

distinguish “all” vulnerabilities from “potential” vulnerabilities. But TVIIM failed to clarify its position during 

claim construction. Moreover, the jury was free to credit

Dr. Rubin’s testimony that HostGUARD and S3 anticipate claims 1 and 11, even in the face of opposing arguments from TVIIM. We thus find Dr. Rubin’s testimony

to be substantial evidence supporting the jury’s invalidity 

determination. 

B. “Various Utility Functions”

TVIIM and McAfee presented competing expert testimony on infringement. TVIIM’s expert Dr. Garuba

testified that Program Updates satisfies the “various 

utility functions” term by performing four functions: 

identifying the threat, accessing the update, downloading 

the update, and installing the update. J.A. 2123–24. 

McAfee’s expert Dr. Rubin disagreed and testified that 

Program Updates performs only one function—

downloading software updates via multiple steps. J.A. 

2445 (“[T]he only thing that [Program Updates] does is it 

updates the programs.”); see also J.A. 2454–55. Given the 

conflicting expert testimony, we find that a reasonable 

mind might accept Dr. Rubin’s testimony over 

Dr. Garuba’s. Thus, substantial evidence supports the 

jury’s verdict of non-infringement. See Versata Software, 

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/21/2017
TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 11

Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 717 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(affirming jury award as supported by substantial evidence despite competing expert testimony). 

Dr. Rubin’s testimony also supports the jury’s invalidity verdict for anticipation. He explained how S3 performs “different utility functions.” J.A. 2493. TVIIM 

expert Eric Knight also testified that HostGUARD “corrected, at a minimum, ownership and permission,” i.e., 

different functions. J.A. 2620. Thus, the testimony that

the prior art and ’168 patent both perform multiple functions constitutes substantial evidence in support of the 

jury’s verdict of invalidity. 

Given the testimony at trial, we find that a uniform 

construction of “various utility functions” would allow the 

jury to arrive at verdicts of non-infringement and invalidity, as both are supported by substantial evidence. 

C. “Reporting The Discovered Vulnerabilities”

At trial, TVIIM argued that Program Updates infringes “reporting the discovered vulnerabilities” by 

providing a “risk rating” to users prior to installation, i.e., 

whether a particular update is “critical” or simply “recommended.” When pressed about what vulnerability 

information is provided to users by Program Updates, 

TVIIM’s expert Dr. Yu responded, “[n]othing more than 

just a risk rating.” J.A. 2046. In other words, although 

Program Updates reports the risk level to the user, it does 

not report any specific information on vulnerabilities. 

Dr. Rubin testified that such a risk rating does not constitute “reporting the discovered vulnerabilities,” because 

Program Updates does not report “something like a 

[Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures] number or a 

specific description of the vulnerability.” J.A. 2455. 

Program Updates will not report any detected vulnerability to a user if no update is available. We find this testimony to be substantial evidence supporting the jury’s 

non-infringement verdict.

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 11 Filed: 03/21/2017
12 TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 

Regarding invalidity for anticipation, the record 

demonstrates that unlike Program Updates, HostGUARD 

and S3 provide users with specific reports on detected 

vulnerabilities. See, e.g., J.A. 2478 (Dr. Rubin) (“So here 

we see the actual vulnerability is described” [in S3]); J.A. 

3796 (HostGUARD brochure describing “reports [that] are 

written in plain English and are formatted to effectively 

communicate the results of the security assessment”); J.A. 

3841–78 (examples of “Vulnerability Descriptions” in S3).1 

Program Updates, by contrast, does not provide any 

detailed vulnerability descriptions. J.A. 2002, 2046, 2455. 

Given this evidence presented, we find that the jury 

verdict of invalidity is supported by substantial evidence.

As with the other two terms, TVIIM has not persuaded us that a jury could not arrive at a non-infringement 

and invalidity verdict based on a single construction of 

“reporting the discovered vulnerabilities.” Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdicts, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion by denying TVIIM’s 

motion for a new trial.

2. Any Potential Error In Claim Construction

Was Harmless

On appeal, TVIIM concedes that substantial evidence 

supports the jury’s finding for either non-infringement or 

invalidity but argues it does not support both. Opening 

Br. at 73 (“[A]ny single ordinary meaning construction 

could support either infringement or invalidity.”) (emphasis omitted); see also J.A. 2638 (TVIIM’s counsel stating at 

 

1 TVIIM asserts that the jury and district court improperly construed “vulnerabilities” to include “discrepancies.” But the district court specifically found that “the 

intrinsic evidence does not clearly exclude ‘discrepancies’ 

from the scope of the claim term ‘vulnerability.’” J.A. 634. 

TVIIM did not appeal that construction. 

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 12 Filed: 03/21/2017
TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 13

trial, “I think there’s questions of fact with respect to 

infringement.”). 

Thus, by TVIIM’s own admission, the jury’s invalidity 

determination could be proper under “any single ordinary 

meaning construction.” Opening Br. 73. This concession 

is determinative, because even if we were to find an 

inconsistent verdict, substantial evidence under “any” 

construction supports the jury’s verdict of invalidity. 

Consequently, any potential error by the jury regarding 

non-infringement was harmless. Cf. Senju Pharm. Co. 

v. Lupin Ltd., 780 F.3d 1337, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming the district court’s invalidity finding and therefore 

not reaching non-infringement arguments); MobileMedia 

Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (holding that because the patent was invalid, the 

court “need not reach Apple’s argument that its accused 

iPhones do not infringe”). 

CONCLUSION

The jury’s findings of non-infringement and invalidity

under a single construction of all three disputed claim 

terms are supported by substantial evidence. Even if 

error occurred in the jury’s verdict of infringement, we 

agree with McAfee that substantial evidence supports the 

jury’s invalidity finding. This renders any error harmless. In light of these findings, we hold that the district 

court’s denial of TVIIM’s motion for JMOL is supported by 

substantial evidence, and that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying TVIIM’s motion for a new 

trial. We therefore affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 13 Filed: 03/21/2017