Opinion ID: 4154236
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Various Utility Functions”

Text: TVIIM and McAfee presented competing expert tes- timony on infringement. TVIIM’s expert Dr. Garuba testified that Program Updates satisfies the “various utility functions” term by performing four functions: identifying the threat, accessing the update, downloading the update, and installing the update. J.A. 2123–24. McAfee’s expert Dr. Rubin disagreed and testified that Program Updates performs only one function— downloading software updates via multiple steps. J.A. 2445 (“[T]he only thing that [Program Updates] does is it updates the programs.”); see also J.A. 2454–55. Given the conflicting expert testimony, we find that a reasonable mind might accept Dr. Rubin’s testimony over Dr. Garuba’s. Thus, substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of non-infringement. See Versata Software, TVIIM, LLC v. MCAFEE, INC. 11 Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 717 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming jury award as supported by substantial evidence despite competing expert testimony). Dr. Rubin’s testimony also supports the jury’s invalidity verdict for anticipation. He explained how S3 performs “different utility functions.” J.A. 2493. TVIIM expert Eric Knight also testified that HostGUARD “corrected, at a minimum, ownership and permission,” i.e., different functions. J.A. 2620. Thus, the testimony that the prior art and ’168 patent both perform multiple functions constitutes substantial evidence in support of the jury’s verdict of invalidity. Given the testimony at trial, we find that a uniform construction of “various utility functions” would allow the jury to arrive at verdicts of non-infringement and invalidity, as both are supported by substantial evidence.