NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 AMERICA, INC., MURATA 

MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., 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-MHSCMC, Judge Michael H. Schneider.

______________________ 

Decided: December 16, 2015

______________________ 

CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented 

by THOMAS D. REIN, TACY FLETCHER FLINT, ROBERT N.

HOCHMAN, STEPHANIE P. KOH, BRYAN C. MULDER;

MICHAEL D. HATCHER, Dallas, TX.
2 SYNQOR, INC. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

ALBERT BERTON DEAVER, JR., Sutton McAughan 

Deaver PLLC, Houston, TX for defendants-appellees 

Artesyn Technologies, Inc. and Astec America, Inc. 

STEVEN NELSON WILLIAMS, McDole Williams, Dallas, 

TX for defendant-appellee Bel Fuse, Inc. 

JOHN C. O’QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, 

DC, for defendants-appellees Murata Electronics North 

America, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co., Inc., and 

Murata Power Solutions Inc. Also represented by JASON 

M. WILCOX, STEVEN CHERNY, New York, NY.

BRIAN BERLINER, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant-appellee Power-One, Inc. Also 

represented by SUSAN ROEDER, Menlo Park, CA. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

SynQor, Inc. (“SynQor”) appeals a district court judgment of non-infringement for infringing acts it claimed 

occurred after entry of a permanent injunction. After a 

bench trial on supplemental damages, the district court 

determined that Artesyn Technologies, Inc. and Astec 

America, Inc. (together, “Astec”) were not liable for inducing Juniper Networks, Inc.’s (“Juniper”) infringement.1 

Finding no direct infringement, the district court declined 

1 Subsequent to oral argument before this Court on 

March 2, 2015, the parties settled the allegations involving non-party Cisco, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) direct infringement. 

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 following entry of 

the permanent injunction, the district court was correct in 

its determination that Astec was not liable for willfulness 

and exceptionality. Accordingly, we affirm.2

BACKGROUND

SynQor manufactures and markets power converters 

called “bus converters.” J.A. 56866–79. Bus convertors 

are high-efficiency DC-DC power converters 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

telecommunication and data communication. SynQor 

owns several patents on this technology. 

Astec also manufactures and markets bus converters. 

The bus converters are manufactured overseas and sold to 

U.S. and foreign customers. 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 manufacturers, including Astec, for 

induced infringement of five U.S. patents. On December 

21, 2010, a jury found Astec liable for inducing Cisco’s

infringement and Juniper’s infringement. J.A. 56406–67. 

On January 24, 2011, the district court issued a permanent injunction against Astec. J.A. 56886–92. The 

district court also awarded damages for induced infringement for the period running post-verdict until entry 

of the permanent injunction. J.A. 57843–49. 

2 We express no view on the issues raised by 

SynQor involving Cisco’s direct infringement. 

 
4 SYNQOR, INC. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

The permanent injunction prohibited Astec from supplying 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 preserved 

Astec’s ability to sell accused bus converters to its foreign 

customers, provided that the bus converters, 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 into the 

United States. J.A. 56891. 

Prior to the entry of the permanent injunction, Juniper agreed in writing not to import Astec’s infringing bus 

converters into the United States. By the time the district court issued the permanent injunction, Juniper had 

implemented procedures to help ensure infringing converters were not imported into the United States. J.A. 23, 

41, 9951–53. 

Following 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 motion for a permanent 

stay. J.A. 56992, 56996. 

During the temporary stay of the permanent injunction, Astec and Juniper entered into an agreement 

whereby Astec agreed to supply bus convertors to Juniper 

in a volume consistent with Juniper’s inventory forecasts. 

In turn, Juniper agreed to indemnify Astec against liability for infringement. 

On April 11, 2011, this Court ordered a partial 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, which 
SYNQOR, 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, the district court awarded supplemental damages for the period of November 1, 2010, to 

the entry of the permanent injunction, January 24, 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 supplemental relief, resulting in SynQor II. J.A. 57694. The 

parties later appealed the final judgment in SynQor I, and 

this Court affirmed. SynQor II, the subject of this appeal,

culminated in a four-day bench trial. On March 31, 2014, 

the district court entered final judgment on supplemental 

damages. The 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). 

DISCUSSION

In cases involving a bench trial, we 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 supporting evidence, we are left with the definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake occurred. Ferring B.V. v. Watson 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); see 
6 SYNQOR, INC. v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

also Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 

1559 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“The burden of overcoming the 

district court’s factual findings is, as it should be, a heavy 

one.”). 

SynQor challenges three distinct findings of the district court: that Juniper did not directly infringe postinjunction, that Astec did not willfully infringe postinjunction, and that 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 following 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 necessarily 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 without

necessarily relying on Astec bus converters to meet U.S. 

sales because Juniper could have used bus converters 

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 importations occurred. 

The district court found Mr. Groves’s testimony credible. J.A. 23, 9820, 9824. In addition, the district court 

found that SynQor had failed to rebut Mr. Groves’s testimony 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 asserted 
SYNQOR, 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 determinations.”). Second, we find no

evidence in the record that Juniper shipped Astec bus 

converters to the United States. To the contrary, the 

record reflects that both Astec and Juniper took reasonable steps to ensure that bus converters supplied by Astec 

to Juniper did not enter the U.S. market. 

The burden to prove infringement rests with the patentee 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 convertors into the United States subsequent to the entry of the permanent injunction. 

Having resolved the underlying issue of direct infringement in favor of Astec, the district court was correct 

to determine that Astec did not engage in willful infringement 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 district court’s decision is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.