Opinion ID: 209348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Request for a New Trial on Obviousness

Text: In the alternative to their request for JMOL of obviousness, Defendants seek a new trial on obviousness because of alleged errors in the jury instructions. At trial, the jury was instructed that: In order to prove obviousness, [Defendants] must prove by clear and convincing evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have found in the prior art some teaching, suggestion or incentive to combine the prior art in the way [KCI] did in its invention. J.A. 235 (emphasis added). Defendants concede that they stipulated to this instruction, but argue that a supervening change in the law resulting from KSR justifies their raising this issue for the first time on appeal. KCI responds that because Defendants stipulated to the instruction, any error was invited and is thus unreviewable. For the purpose of this review, we assume arguendo that Defendants did not invite the alleged error in the jury instructions. Challenges to jury instructions are reviewed under the law of the regional circuit where the district court sits. Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1328 (Fed.Cir.2008). In the Fifth Circuit, an objection to the jury instructions first raised on appeal must meet the exacting requirements of plain error. Tompkins v. Cyr, 202 F.3d 770, 784 (5th Cir.2000). To overturn a verdict for plain error in the instructions, we must find an obviously incorrect statement of law that was probably responsible for an incorrect verdict, leading to substantial injustice. Id. (citations and quotations omitted). As discussed above, substantial evidence supports a finding that the Chariker-Jeter, Svedman, Johnson, and Davydov prior art references do not treat wounds with negative pressure as claimed in the asserted patents. The alleged error in the jury instruction relates to the teaching, suggestion, or incentive to combine the prior art. Based on our conclusion that there was substantial evidence that none of the prior art references treat wounds with negative pressure, we are not persuaded that the instruction on obviousness was probably responsible for an incorrect verdict. See id. ; see also z4 Techs., 507 F.3d at 1355 (affirming denial of a new trial on obviousness after KSR because defendants failed to identify evidence establishing a prima facie case of obviousness). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Defendants' request for a new trial.