Opinion ID: 210220
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction Regarding Burden of Proof on Invalidity

Text: Although the district court properly instructed the jury that Microsoft had the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, see SRAM, 465 F.3d at 1357, Microsoft contends that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to further instruct the jury that Microsoft's burden is more easily carried when the references on which the assertion is based were not directly considered by the examiner during prosecution. We disagree. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1050 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (The burden of proof is not reduced when prior art is presented to the court which was not considered by the PTO.); Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Nicolet Instrument Corp., 739 F.2d 604, 615 (Fed.Cir.1984) (The introduction of prior art not considered by the PTO does not change the burden of proof or the requirement that evidence establish the presumption-defeating facts clearly and convincingly.), abrogated on other grounds by Markman, 52 F.3d 967. Despite Microsoft's reliance on cases indicating that a party may more easily meet this clear and convincing evidence burden when the references at issue were not before the examiner, see, e.g., Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1359-60 (Fed.Cir. 1984), it cites no authority compelling courts to provide such an instruction, and we agree with the district court that it might lead the jury to believe that the burden of proof is less than clear and convincing when prior art was not considered by the PTO. JMOL Opinion at 22. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to provide the jury with Microsoft's requested instruction.