N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ SYNQOR, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES , INC., ASTEC AMERICA, INC., BEL FUSE, INC., MURATA ELECTRONICS NORTH AM ERICA, INC ., MURATA

MANUFACTURING CO., L TD ., MURATA POWER SOLUTIONS INC. , AND POWER

- ONE, INC., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________
2014

- 1459

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:11

- cv

- 00444

- MHS

CMC, Judge Michael H. Schneider.

______________________
Decided: December 16, 2015

______________________
C ONSTANTINE L. T RELA , J R ., Sidley Austin LLP, Ch icago, IL, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by T HOMAS D. R EIN , T ACY F LETCHER F LINT , R OBERT N. H OCHMAN , S TEPHANIE P. K OH , B RYAN C. M ULDER ; M ICHAEL D. H ATCHER , Dallas, TX.SYNQOR , INC

. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 2

A LBERT B ERTON D EAVER , J R ., Sutton McAughan Deaver PLLC, Houston, TX for defendant s-appellees Artesyn Technologies, Inc. and Astec America, Inc.

S TEVEN N ELSON W ILLIAMS , McDole Williams, Dallas, TX for defendant

- appellee Bel Fuse, Inc.

J OHN C. O’Q UINN , Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC
, for defendant s- appellees Murata Electronics North America, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co., Inc.
, and Murata Power Solutions Inc. Also represented by J ASON M. W ILCOX , S TEVEN C HERNY , New York, NY.

B RIAN B ERLINER , O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Ang eles, CA for defendant

- appellee Power

- One, Inc. Also represented by S USAN R OEDER , Menlo Park, CA.

______________________
Before L OURIE , M OORE , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges.
R EYNA , Circuit Judge

. SynQor, Inc. (“SynQor”) appeals a district court jud gment of non

- infringement for infringing acts it claimed

occurr ed after entry of a permanent injunction

. A fter a bench trial on supplemental damages
, t he district court determined that Artesyn Technologies, Inc. and A stec America, Inc. (together, “Astec”) were not liable for indu cing Juniper Networks , Inc. ’s (“Juniper”) infringement

. 1 Finding no direct infringement, the district court declined

1 Subse q uent to oral argument before this Court on March 2, 2015, the parties settled the allegations invol ving non

- party Cisco, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) direct infr ingement. Dkt. Nos. 106, 107. As a result, this opinion addresses the remaining issues involving non

- party Juniper ’s direct infringement.SYNQOR , INC

. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 3

to find willful infringement
, or that the case was exceptional for purposes of attorney ’s fees and costs

. Because the district court did not err in finding that Juniper did not directly infringe the patents

- in

- suit follow ing entry of the permanent injunction , the district court was correct in its determination that Astec was not liable for willfulness and exceptionality

. Accordingly , w e affirm

. 2
B ACKGROUND
S ynQor manufactures and markets power convert e rs called “ bus convert e rs .” J.A. 56866

– 79. B us convertors are high

- efficiency DC

- DC power converter s that draw power from a DC voltage source and convert the power to a lower DC voltage. The bus converters at issue are used as components in computer systems and equipment for telecommunica tion and data communication. SynQor owns several patents on this t echnology.
Astec also manufacture s and market s bus converters

. T he bus converters are manufactured overseas and sold to U.S. and foreign custom ers. Astec ’s U.S. customers include Cisco and Juniper . Cisco and Juniper are not parties to this action

. SynQor filed suit in district court (“ SynQor I ”) against several bus

- converter manufacture rs , including Astec
, for induced infringement of five U.S. patents

. On December 21, 2010, a jury found Astec liable for in ducing Cisco’s infringement and Juniper’s i nfringement

. J.A. 56406

– 67. On January 24, 2011, the district court issued a pe rmanent injunction against Astec

. J.A. 56886

– 92. T he district court also awarded damages for induced i nfringement for the period running post

- verdict until entry of the permanent in junction . J.A. 57843

– 49.

2 We express no view on the issues raised by SynQor involving Cisco’s direct infringement.SYNQOR , INC

. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 4

The permanent injunction prohibited Astec from su pplying infringing bus converters to Juniper and Cisco for use in the manufacture of products sold in the United States. J.A. 56892. The permanent injunction preserv ed Astec ’s ability to sell accused bus converters to its foreign customers , provided that the bus converter s , or any finished products that incorporated the infringing bus converters, were accompanied by a notice stating that the bus converters were subject to a permanent injunction that precluded their sale, use, or importation in to the United States. J.A. 56891. Prior to the entry of the permanent injunction, Jun iper agreed in writing not to import Astec’s infringing bus converters into the United States. By the time the di strict court issued the permanent injunction, Juniper had implemented procedures to help ensure infringing co nverters were not imported into the Un ited States. J.A. 23, 41, 9951

– 53.
F ollowing entry of the permanent injunction, Astec filed an emergency motion in this Court, seeking to stay the injunction. J.A. 10588. This Court issued an order imposing a temporary stay of the permanent injunction so that it could fully consider the mo tion for a permanent stay. J.A. 56992, 56996

. During the temporary stay of the permanent injun ction, Astec and Juniper entered into an agreement whereby Astec agreed to supply bus convertors to Juniper in a volume consistent with Juniper’s inventory for ecasts. In turn, Juniper agreed to indemnify Astec against liabi lity for infringement. On April 11, 2011, this Cour t ordered a par tial stay of the permanent injunction as to sales to Cisco , which permitted Cisco to ship to the United States for a limited period of time infringing bus converters supplied by Defendants . J.A. 52216. The Court denied a partial stay of the permanent injunction as to sales to Juniper , whichSYNQOR , INC

. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 5

kept the permanent injunction in place against Juniper

. J.A. 52215. SynQor moved the district court for supplemental damages for infringement occurring after October 31, 2010

. On July 11, 2011, t he district court awarded su pplemental damages for the period of November 1, 2010
, to the entry of the permanent injunction
, January 2 4, 2011

. J.A. 57693

– 95. The district court also awarded enhanced damages upon a finding of willful conduct. After resolving pre

- injunction damages , the district court severed SynQor’s claims for post

- injunction suppl emental relief , resulting in SynQor II

. J.A. 57694. The parties later appealed the final judgment in SynQor I , and this C ourt affirmed. SynQor II , the subject of this appeal, culminated in a fou r- day bench trial

. On March 31, 2014
, the district court entered final judgment on supplementa l damages

. T he district court determined that Juniper did not directly infringe the patents

- in

- suit after entry of the permanent injunction
, that Astec ’s post

- injunction actions

were not willful, and that the case was not exceptional. SynQor appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

D ISCUSSION In cases involving a bench trial, w e review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo
, and its findings of fact for clear error. Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. , 796 F.3d 1293, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if, despite some su pporting evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred. Ferring B.V. v. Wa tson Labs., Inc.

- Fla. , 764 F.3d 1401, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). A district court has broad discretion in determining witness credibility, and we give great deference to those determinations. Energy Capital Corp. v. United States , 302 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2002); seeSYNQOR , INC

. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 6

also Pol aroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 789 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“The burden of over coming the district court’ s factual findings is, as it should be, a heavy one.”). SynQor challenges three distinct findings of the di strict court : that Juniper did not directly infringe post

injunction, that Astec did not willfully infringe post

injunction, and th at case was not exceptional. SynQor argues that the evidence supports a finding of direct infringement by Juniper because Astec’s sales to Juniper were consistent with Juniper’s inventory forecast for the two quarters follow ing the permanent injunction. SynQor argues that, because there is no evidence that Juniper had replacement converters available for its U.S.

- bound products, Astec’s convertors necess arily must have been shipped to the United States. In addition, SynQor argues that the indemnification agreement entered into by Astec and Juniper is evidence of intent to infringe.
Astec’s witness John Groves testified that Juniper had multiple sources for its converters and that Juniper used the other sources for its U.S.

- bound products. Thus, Juniper was able to meet its inventory forecasts with out necessarily relying on Astec bus converters to meet U.S

. sales because Juniper could have used bus conv erters supplied by other parties. While Astec acknowledges that the indemnity agreement protected Astec should Juniper intentionally, negligently, or accidentally import Astec bus converters , there is no evidence that such import ations occurred.
The district court found Mr. Groves ’s testimony cred ible . J.A. 23 , 9820, 9824

. In addition, the district court found that SynQor had failed to rebut Mr. Groves’ s test imony or to otherwise present evidence that Astec bus convertors supplied to Juniper were sold (imported) in the United States. J.A. 23. As such, the district court found that Juniper did not directly infringe SynQor’s assertedSYNQOR , INC

. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 7

patents during the period subsequent to the entry of the permanent injunction. We agree with the district court. First, we defer to the district court’s determinations about the credibility of the evidence produced by Astec ’s witness
, especially in consideration that SynQor offered no compelling reasons to the contrary. Senju Pharm. Co. v. Lupin Ltd. , 780 F.3d 1337, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Ordinarily, and absent compelling reason otherwise, an appellate court defers to such credibility determina tions.”). Second, we find no evidence in the record that Juniper shipped Astec bus converters to the United States. To the contr ary, the record reflects that both Astec and Juniper took reason able steps to ensure th at bus converters supplied by Astec to Juniper did not enter the U.S. market. The burden to prove infringement rests with the p atentee who must prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC , 134 S. Ct. 843, 846 (2014); Ferring , 764 F.3d at 1408. SynQor failed to meet that burden because it failed to produce evidence that Juniper imported Astec supplied bus conv ertors into the United States subs equent to the entry of the permanent injunction. Having resolved the underlying issue of direct i nfringement in favor of Astec, the district court was correct to determine that Astec did not engage in willful i nfringement and that the case is not exceptional as to Astec

. We hold that the district court’s infringement decision was not clearly erroneous. As a result, the di strict court’s decision is affirmed

. AFFIRMED
C OSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.