Opinion ID: 2742021
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for a New Trial

Text: SSL argues that even if we agree that the district court correctly construed the term “destination address,” our analysis of the infringement verdict must continue. SSL asserts that it is entitled to a new trial if we agree that any one of the disputed claim constructions was erroneous, arguing that we must assess the constructions relating to all the disputed limitations before we can rest assured that the jury’s non-infringement finding was not infected by some error. Because the jury returned a general verdict of non-infringement after hearing multiple theories of non-infringement, SSL argues that “it would be impossible for this Court to discern whether the jury rested its verdict of non-infringement on the erroneous claim construction.” Appellant Br. 52. We agree that the general verdict rule applies with the same force in patent cases as it does in all other cases. We also agree that Citrix misreads our decision in Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which does not even address the general verdict rule or reach any conclusions regarding how that rule might have been implicated—or avoided—on the facts presented. 5 We find, however, that there is no evidence in the record from which a good faith argument can be made that the Citrix GoTo Products’ identifiers are “network addresses” as that term was construed by the 5 We specifically conclude that Verizon does not, as Citrix contends, stand for the proposition that a general verdict of non-infringement may be affirmed upon a decision that the district court’s challenged construction of even one claim term relating to a single claim limitation is correct. That is so only, where, as here, there is no argument and no evidence that substantial evidence might have supported a finding of non-infringement under the first challenged construction which we consider. 16 SSL SERVICES, LLC v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. district court. Because we now affirm that construction, we conclude that, even if the district court erred in its construction of the other challenged limitations, the result the jury reached—the finding of non-infringement—would not change. In these circumstances, we soundly can base our conclusion that the non-infringement verdict stands on the fact that the single network address limitation is not practiced by the accused products. See Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“We may affirm the jury’s findings on infringement or validity issues if substantial evidence appears in the record supporting the jury’s verdict and if correction of the errors in a jury instruction on claim construction would not have changed the result, given the evidence presented.”). SSL seems to concede that it must show prejudice in the trial court’s instructions to the jury regarding the meaning of a relevant claim term before an erroneous instruction regarding any such term can justify disturbing a jury verdict. See, e.g., Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc., 285 F.3d 1362, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“A party seeking to alter a judgment based on erroneous jury instructions must establish that ‘those instructions were legally erroneous,’ and that ‘the errors had prejudicial effect.’”) (quoting Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). It implies, however, that prejudice must be presumed whenever a general verdict makes it impossible to discern on which specific limitation the jury rested its verdict of non-infringement. The cases upon which SSL relies do not give rise to such a presumption, however, and we know of no case law that creates one. The general verdict rule guards against the threat of a tainted or improper verdict. See SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Under the general verdict rule, where one or more of multiple claims is found legally invalid, a reviewing court must reverse and order a new trial if [the reviewing SSL SERVICES, LLC v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. 17 court is] unable to determine whether the invalid theory tainted the verdict.”) (citation omitted), aff’d on other grounds, 134 S. Ct. 2060 (2011). But, the burden to establish that such a threat exists is on the party challenging the verdict. Ecolab, 285 F.3d at 1373. SSL has not satisfied the burden of establishing that an error in any other claim construction could have changed the verdict here if we conclude, as we have, that the “destination address” in claim 27 of the ’796 Patent means the “network address of a computer or server.” While SSL argued that the Citrix GoTo Products’ identifiers would infringe under SSL’s construction of “destination address” because they are “identifier[s] for a desired location,” SSL did not argue in its opening brief to this court that the GoTo Products would still infringe under the district court’s construction. See Appellant Br. 48–49. Not until its reply did SSL contend that the jury might have found that the Citrix GoTo Products met the destination address limitation as construed by the district court. Appellant Reply Br. 32–33. And, even then, SSL failed to point to testimony or evidence in the record upon which such a finding could be predicated. 6 Accordingly, we find that SSL waived the argument that the jury could have found that the GoTo Products met the destination address limitation under the district court’s construction. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our law is well established that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived.” (citation omitted)). Even if this argument was not waived, moreover, all relevant evidence supports the finding that the Citrix 6 While SSL cites to the trial court’s refusal to grant summary judgment or otherwise take the question of infringement from the jury, those orders are not the same as record evidence. 18 SSL SERVICES, LLC v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. GoTo Products’ identifiers 7 are not “network addresses” that are intercepted during initialization of communications between the first and second client computer where the encrypted files are transmitted directly. First, there is no dispute that the Citrix GoTo Identifiers are not IP addresses. The GoTo Products, however, use IP-based protocols. Accordingly, the network addresses of the client computers running the GoTo Products necessarily are the respective IP addresses. Therefore, because the GoTo Identifiers are not the IP addresses of the client computers, the record commands the finding that the Citrix GoTo Products do not contain the “destination address” limitation. Second, the first client computer never knows the IP address of the second client computer based on the GoTo Identifiers. Only the intermediary, such as a broker or communications server, knows the second client computer’s IP address. Accordingly, the GoTo Products could neither intercept nor provide the network address to direct the encrypted files. Because the GoTo Identifiers are not the IP address of the second client computer, the “destination address” limitation is simply not met. SSL proffers no facts or evidence to support a contrary conclusion. Consequently, we affirm the denial of SSL’s motion for a new trial on infringement of the ’796 Patent, without considering the “intercepting” and step order limitations. 8