Opinion ID: 210220
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instruction Regarding Obviousness

Text: Microsoft also requests a remand in light of the Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007), based on the district court's instruction to the jury that to find an asserted claim obvious, you must find that there was some teaching, suggestion or incentive to combine the items in the prior art into the particular claimed combination. z4 responds that Microsoft would not be entitled to a new trial regardless of the outcome in KSR [3] because the only direct evidence of obviousness introduced by Microsoft was the conclusory testimony of its expert. See Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2000) (noting that there must be factual support for an expert's conclusory opinion); see also JMOL Opinion at 10 (noting that it was questionable whether Defendants even established a prima facie case of obviousness). Although Microsoft asserts that the jury certainly could have reached a conclusion of obviousness on this record, Reply Br. at 30, it fails to identify specific evidence or arguments establishing even a prima facie case of obviousness under the factors outlined in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion here by the district court.