Opinion ID: 2720188
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the District Court Altered the

Text: Claim Construction Mformation argues that the district court impermissibly added an order-of-steps claim requirement postverdict in its JMOL opinion—i.e., a requirement that a connection must be completely established before the transmitting step begins. See J.A. 16783 (“[U]nder the Court’s construction, a connection between the server and the wireless device must be established before transmission of a command is commenced.”). However, according to Mformation, with respect to the “wherein the connection is established . . .” limitation, the district court only informed the jury that this limitation requires that the connection be initiated before transmitting. Thus, Mformation argues that the jury was told that transmitting could begin before the connection is fully established, as long as the connection is later completed. The record indicates that such a sequence is not only possible but also what indeed occurs with BES software. Mformation also compares this case to Hewlett- Packard, where we concluded that the district court improperly broadened a claim construction post-verdict. 340 F.3d at 1320-21. In granting a new trial, we ex- plained that “[w]hen issues of claim construction have not been properly raised in connection with the jury instructions, it is improper for the district court to adopt a new or 4 We have carefully considered BlackBerry’s other waiver arguments, but we do not find them persuasive. 10 MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. more detailed claim construction in connection with the JMOL motion.” Id. In response, BlackBerry argues that there was no change in the claim construction. It notes that the district court directed the jury in its instructions that the “‘establishing a connection’ sub-step must be completed before the ‘transmitting the contents of the mailbox’ substep can commence.” J.A. 117-18. Further, BlackBerry argues that the district court’s claim construction order construed the phrase “establishing a connection” in part to mean “initiating wireless communication between a wireless device and the server.” J.A. 88. The district court also required in its claim construction order that “the ‘establishing a connection’ sub-step must be completed before the ‘transmitting the content of the mailbox’ sub-step can commence.” J.A. 90. To the extent the district court did clarify its earlier claim construction, BlackBerry claims that was not erroneous, as we have allowed district courts in the past to adjust constructions post-trial if the court merely elaborates on a meaning inherent in the previous construction. See, e.g., Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Indeed, in Cordis, the district court construed the term “undulating” to mean “rising and falling in waves, thus having at least a crest and a trough.” Id. at 1355. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the district court granted JMOL of non-infringement, clarifying that the “use of the plural ‘waves’ implies a change in direction,” and thus that the construction could not be met by a single “U” shape. Id. We found no error in the district court’s clarification of its construction of the term “undulating.” Id. at 1357. Here, just as in Cordis, BlackBerry argues that the district court’s JMOL order clarified a construction that was inherent in the jury instructions and claim construction order. MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. RESEARCH IN MOTION 11 LTD. Finally, BlackBerry notes that even if there was a change in the claim construction, the district court correctly held it to be harmless. 5 We agree with BlackBerry and, therefore, conclude that the district court did not change its claim construction post-verdict. Rather, the district court at most clarified its previous construction that was already present in the jury instructions. In the section of the jury instructions where the district court describes the “establishing a connection” sub-step, the district court explains that the use of the phrase “connection is established” found in the “wherein” clause means that a connection must not only be initiated, but must be “made by the server with the wireless device.” J.A. 118. Then, in the next section, the instructions discuss the transmitting sub-step. Id. A logical reading of these instructions would be that the sub-step discussed in the first section of the jury instructions must be completed before moving on to the next section discussing a separate sub-step. Further, we note that this case is very similar to Cordis. In Cordis, we stated that “[t]he district court’s post-verdict elaboration on this point only clarified what was inherent in the construction. Doing so was not error; it merely made plain what . . . should have been obvious 5 BlackBerry has also moved to strike the portions of Mformation’s reply brief that challenge the district court’s holding that any purported change in the claim construction was harmless because Mformation allegedly failed to preserve that argument in its opening brief. Appellees’ Mot. to Strike 4, ECF No. 74. However, after reviewing its opening brief, we conclude that Mformation did challenge this holding. See Appellants’ Br. 61-62, ECF No. 38 (stating it was highly prejudicial for the district court to change its claim construction post-trial). Therefore, we deny BlackBerry’s motion. 12 MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD. to the jury.” 658 F.3d at 1356. This is also the case here, as the jury instructions explained that (1) the “wherein” clause was “a further limitation” on the “establishing a connection” sub-step; and (2) the phrase “is established” in that clause means that a “connection must not only be initiated, but must be made.” J.A. 118. The jury instructions also explained that “[t]he ‘establishing a connection’ sub-step must be completed before the ‘transmitting’ . . . sub-step can commence.” Id. It is inherent in those instructions that, to complete the “establishing a connection” sub-step, the connection must be “established,” and that must happen before the transmitting sub-step begins. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not alter its claim construction.