Opinion ID: 741849
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Our interpretation of our mandate

Text: 20 Having concluded that the trial court misinterpreted our mandate in Laitram II, we now turn to the correct interpretation. According to Sanford, [t]he opinion delivered by this court at the time of rendering its decree may be consulted to ascertain what was intended by its mandate.... 160 U.S. at 256, 16 S.Ct. at 293. Here, the opinion delivered by this court at the time of rendering its mandate analyzes and reaches only the propriety of the JMOL of non-infringement. Given that willfulness and claim identicality were deemed moot (unless the JMOL of non-infringement were reversed), our mandate to reinstate the jury verdict could only have referred to the reinstatement of the verdict of infringement, the only issue appealed. It is incorrect to conclude that we decided issues not only undecided on the merits by the trial court because they were moot, and thus on appeal unripe, but also neither presented to us nor discussed in our opinion, nor necessary to our disposition of the appeal. The scope of our review, and our power to review, was limited to the sole order that was appealed. That order was limited to infringement.