Opinion ID: 209348
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Review of the Jury's Verdict on Obviousness

Text: Defendants' final argument with respect to its JMOL motion is that the district court erred by failing to conduct its own obviousness analysis. Defendants do not argue that submitting the question of obviousness to the jury is error. However, they assert that the district court strayed by treat[ing] the obviousness conclusion as a pure factual question and simply reviewing the jury's verdict for substantial evidence. Appellant's Br. 54. Because of this, Defendants argue, the district court never considered which Graham factors justified a nonobviousness verdict. Defendants allege that had such an analysis occurred, the district court would have concluded that the asserted patents were obvious. Defendants' obviousness argument at trial relied heavily on the prior art references, the scope and content of which are factual questions to be determined by the jury. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, 86 S.Ct. 684. As discussed above, KCI presented substantial evidence to support its interpretation of the references. Thus, we must assume that the jury found that the prior art does not disclose treating a wound with negative pressure within the meaning of the patents. See Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co., 400 F.3d 238, 249 (5th Cir.2005) (on appeal of a motion for JMOL, the evidence, as well as all reasonable inferences from it, are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict (quotations omitted)). In light of this, we conclude that Defendants failed to establish that the asserted claims were obvious as a matter of law.