Opinion ID: 2801691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Utility Patents

Text: Finally, Samsung challenges the validity of claim 50 of the ’163 patent and claim 8 of the ’915 patent. Samsung also challenges the damages awarded for utility patent infringement.

Claim 50 of the ’163 patent relates to a user interface feature in which a user’s double tapping on a portion of an electronic document causes the portion to be enlarged and “substantially centered” on the display. ’163 patent, claim 50. Samsung contends that claim 50 is indefinite because the ’163 patent provides “no objective standard to measure the scope of the term ‘substantially centered.’” Appellants’ Br. 66. Samsung’s complaint about a lack of an “objective standard [of] measure” is seeking a level of precision that exceeds the definiteness required of valid patents. “The definiteness requirement . . . mandates clarity, while recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). Given this recognition, “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specifiAPPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 29 cation delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Id. at 2124. Samsung, however, points to no evidence showing that skilled artisans would find the element “substantially centered” as lacking reasonable certainty in its scope. In contrast, Apple’s expert explained that the “padding” allowed in the ’163 patent provides skilled artisans with enough information to understand what “substantially centered” means in the patent. J.A. 41907-09. Apple’s expert cites a discussion in the specification of an embodiment referring to the figure reproduced below where the enlarged portion of the document is essentially centered except for “a predefined amount of padding along the sides of the display.” See ’163 patent col. 17 ll. 26-30. Apple thus presented evidence to show that skilled artisans would interpret “substantially centered” in the ’163 patent to mean essentially centered except for a marginal spacing to accommodate ancillary graphical user interface elements. We are not persuaded by Samsung’s attempt to discredit this expert testimony. We therefore agree with the district court that Samsung failed to carry its burden 30 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. in challenging the validity of claim 50 of the ’163 patent for indefiniteness.
Claim 8 of the ’915 patent describes a computer-based method for distinguishing between scrolling and gesture (such as zooming) operations on a touch screen. ’915 patent, claim 8. The dispute centers on whether a prior art reference, the Nomura patent application, taught the “event object” element in claim 8. The claim recites “event object” in the context such as: “creating an event object in response to the user input; determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation . . . .” Id. Samsung contends that the “movement history” in Nomura inherently disclosed the “event object” in claim 8 based on the opinion of its expert. Appellants’ Br. 64-65. Apple, however, rebuts with its own expert testimony. Apple’s expert explained that “event objects” in claim 8 refers to a particular “programming construct[]” and that there were many potential programming alternatives that Nomura could have used to implement the “movement history” it disclosed. J.A. 43636-37. According to the explanation by Apple’s expert, Nomura did not inherently disclose the claimed “event object.” We find that a reasonable jury could have credited the testimony of Apple’s expert over Samsung’s expert. Thus, we agree with the district court that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that claim 8 of the ’915 patent was not anticipated.
Apple advanced at trial both lost profits and reasonable royalty damages theories. The jury determined that for certain Samsung phones found to infringe the ’915 patent, no reasonable non-infringing alternative was available, and thus lost profits was an appropriate measure of damages. For the other Samsung phones found to APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 31 infringe Apple’s utility patents-in-suit, the jury determined that an award of lost profits was not supported, and thus awarded Apple a reasonable royalty for Samsung’s infringement. 1. Lost Profits for Infringement of the ’915 Patent “To recover lost profits, the patent owner must show causation in fact, establishing that but for the infringement, he would have made additional profits.” Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods., 185 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The patentee must “take[] into account any alternatives available to the infringer.” Id. at 1351. “[M]arket sales of an acceptable noninfringing substitute often suffice alone to defeat a case for lost profits.” Id. at 1352. Samsung argues that lost profits should not have been awarded because the evidence showed the existence of non-infringing substitutes. Specifically, Samsung contends that two Samsung phones, found to have not infringed the ’915 patent, should have been considered by the jury as non-infringing substitutes. Samsung further asserts that Apple failed to prove consumer preference of the ’915 patent’s technology over a purportedly comparable feature available in the two non-infringing Samsung phones. However, “the ‘[m]ere existence of a competing device does not make that device an acceptable substitute.’” Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 702 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting TWM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 901 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (alteration in original). The mere existence of noninfringing phones is all Samsung is relying on to attack the jury’s verdict. For example, Samsung points to no evidence to support its assertion that the two noninfringing phones included a feature comparable to the one claimed in the ’915 patent. 32 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. In contrast, there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s refusal to consider the two phones asserted by Samsung as non-infringing substitutes. Of these two phones, one had significantly different features, such as a slide-out physical keyboard in combination with a small, low-resolution screen. See Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc., 926 F.2d 1136, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“To be deemed acceptable, the alleged acceptable noninfringing substitute must not have a disparately higher price than or possess characteristics significantly different from the patented product.”). And the other phone was never sold by a U.S. carrier. See Grain Processing, 185 F.3d at 1349 (“[T]o be an acceptable non-infringing substitute, the product or process must have been available or on the market at the time of infringement.”). The jury could have reasonably found that these two Samsung phones were not acceptable alternatives. Samsung’s unsupported assertion to the contrary fails to show a lack of substantial evidence supporting the awards of lost profits. 2. Reasonable Royalty Samsung argues that Apple’s expert in the damages retrial, Ms. Davis, offered only a cursory explanation of how she arrived at the royalty rates she calculated based on the Georgia-Pacific factors. Samsung complains specifically about Ms. Davis’s testimony that the evidence of demand from her lost profits analysis was “also relevant to the determination of the amount of reasonable royalties.” Appellants’ Br. 72. Samsung does not dispute that Ms. Davis sufficiently explained her analysis of demand in the lost profit context. Samsung is only challenging that she did not repeat the same information with all of the details in testifying about her reasonable royalty calculation. However, Ms. Davis expressly testified that the demand factor for lost profits was also relevant to the determination of a reasonable royalty. J.A. 50651-52 (“Q. Is this issue of deAPPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 33 mand relevant to any category of damages other than lost profits? A. Yes. It’s relevant to the determination of the amount of reasonable royalties.”). A reasonable jury could refer to Ms. Davis’s testimony from an earlier context and appropriately weigh the evidence in considering Ms. Davis’s calculation on the royalty rates. Moreover, Ms. Davis’s testimony included additional substance on the Georgia-Pacific factors. For example, Ms. Davis expressly considered the cost to Samsung of being out of the market long enough to design around the patents, the profits attributable to Samsung’s use of the patented technology, and the commercial relationship between the parties. Taken as a whole, Ms. Davis’s testimony provided sufficient evidence to support the jury’s reasonable royalty awards in the damages retrial. Finally, Samsung complained that Apple’s expert in the first damages trial, Mr. Musika, failed to explain his Georgia-Pacific analysis and identified no evidence supporting his royalty rates. Upon Apple’s response, Samsung acknowledges that Mr. Musika did in fact identify and discuss specific Georgia-Pacific factors and that Mr. Musika referred to an exhibit during his testimony. Samsung now contends that the analysis was not meaningful and the cited exhibit did not discuss the GeorgiaPacific’s factors at all. Samsung’s fault-finding is meritless. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the invalidity of claim 50 of the ’163 patent and claim 8 of the ’915 patent, as well as the damages awarded for utility patent infringement. We also affirm the district court’s denial of Samsung’s motions for a new trial on these same issues. We remand for immediate entry of final judgment on all damages awards not predicated on Apple’s trade dress claims and for any further proceedings necessitated by our decision to vacate the jury’s verdicts on the unregistered and registered trade dress claims. 34 APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART and REMANDED COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.