Court Opinion

ID: 9946249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:03:21.813869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:33.291330
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1647    Document: 62     Page: 1    Filed: 02/02/2024

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

    INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC, TERMINAL
               REALITY, INC.,
              Plaintiffs-Appellants

                             v.

    SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
             Defendant-Cross-Appellant
              ______________________

                   2022-1647, 2022-1739
                  ______________________

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the
 Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:19-cv-00248-JRG, Chief
 Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: February 2, 2024
                  ______________________

     ERIC WILLIAM BUETHER, Buether Joe & Counselors,
 LLC, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also rep-
 resented by CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL JOE, KENNETH PAUL
 KULA.

    ABRAN J. KEAN, Erise IP, P.A., Greenwood Village, CO,
 argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by
 ERIC ALLAN BURESH, Overland Park, KS.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62     Page: 2    Filed: 02/02/2024

 2                              INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and STARK,
                     Circuit Judges.
 CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

      Infernal Technology, LLC, and Terminal Reality, Inc.,
 (collectively, “Infernal” for the remainder of this opinion)
 appeal the decision from the United States District Court
 for the Eastern District of Texas denying Infernal’s motion
 for a new trial following a jury verdict that certain products
 belonging to Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“Sony”)
 did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,362,822 (“’822 patent”)
 and U.S. Patent No. 7,061,488 (“’488 patent”) (collectively,
 the “Asserted Patents”). Sony, on a conditional cross-ap-
 peal, challenges the district court’s finding that the claims
 of the Asserted Patents are not ineligible for patent protec-
 tion under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

                        BACKGROUND

                  A. The Asserted Patents

      The Asserted Patents are directed to “improved meth-
 ods and arrangements for use in rendering lighting and
 shadows in computer graphic simulations, such as, for ex-
 ample, interactive computer graphics simulations of multi-
 dimensional objects.” ’822 patent, col. 1, ll. 7–10. These
 patents share a common specification, and the ’488 Patent
 is a continuation of the ’822 patent. 1

     1    Infernal alleges that Sony infringed claim 1 of the
 ’822 patent and claims 1, 27, and 50 of the ’488 patent (col-
 lectively, the “Asserted Claims”). All citations to the As-
 serted Claims in this opinion are to claim 1 of the ’822
 patent, which is representative of all claims, including
 those in the ’488 patent.
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62     Page: 3    Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                 3
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

      The Asserted Patents describe difficulties prior art
 methods faced in portraying 3D worlds and objects in com-
 puter gaming, which “typically require[d] that millions of
 calculations be conducted between frames (i.e., in ‘real
 time’).” ’822 patent, col. 1, ll. 25–47. These computing chal-
 lenges meant that compromises often occurred in accu-
 rately portraying virtual 3D worlds. ’822 patent, col. 1, ll.
 47–50. Such a compromise was in the rendering of shad-
 ows cast by lighted 3D objects. ’822 patent, col. 1, ll. 57–
 59. One such prior art method, discussed in the Asserted
 Patents, involved two steps: in the first step, converting
 data for a 3D object from model world coordinates to a light
 source’s coordinates to determine which portions of the ob-
 ject are visible to the light source and thus illuminated by
 it. ’822 patent, col. 2, ll. 4–15. The resulting data is then
 transformed back to the modeling world coordinates to cre-
 ate viewpoint-independent data. ’822 patent, col. 2, ll. 18–
 24. In the second step, the data is “converted from the mod-
 eled world space to a corresponding screen (or camera)
 viewpoint” and an algorithm determines which portions of
 the objects of the scene are visible with respect to the cam-
 era. ’822 patent, col. 2, ll. 25–34. This two-step method
 resulted in unrealistic shadows in scenes with multiple
 light sources since the portions of the objects in the scene
 would be repeatedly darkened for each light source that did
 not hit that portion. ’822 patent, col. 2, ll. 35–56. The pro-
 cess was also overly burdensome from a computational
 standpoint. ’822 patent, col. 2, ll. 57–63.

     To address the issues with the prior art methods, the
 Asserted Patents claim an improved method and arrange-
 ment for rendering shadows that (1) provides observer and
 light data for the simulated scene (the “providing” step); (2)
 compares light data and observer data to determine which
 points in the scene are illuminated by each light source and
 storing the light image data for those illuminated points in
 a “light accumulation buffer” (the “comparing” and “stor-
 ing” step); and (3) combines the data stored in the light
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62     Page: 4    Filed: 02/02/2024

 4                              INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 accumulation buffer with the observer data for the scene
 (the “combining” step) and then (4) “display[s] the resulting
 image data to a computer screen.” ’822 patent, col. 3, ll.
 18–62; id. col. 12, ll. 4–20. Essentially, the Asserted Pa-
 tents represent improvements over the prior art because
 they teach storing data for the portions of the objects in the
 scene that are illuminated, rather than the portions that
 are shaded, to avoid repeated shadowing in scenes with
 multiple light sources; and they teach converting 3D to 2D
 data for the method steps to reduce the intensity of the
 computing in the process. Claim 1 of the Asserted Patents
 is representative:

     1. A shadow rendering method for use in a com-
     puter system, the method comprising the steps of:

     providing observer data of a simulated multi-di-
     mensional scene;

     providing lighting data associated with a plurality
     of simulated light sources arranged to illuminate
     said scene, said lighting data including light image
     data;

     for each of said plurality of light sources, compar-
     ing at least a portion of said observer data with at
     least a portion of said lighting data to determine if
     a modeled point within said scene is illuminated by
     said light source and storing at least a portion of
     said light image data associated with said point
     and said light source in a light accumulation buffer;
     and then

     combining at least a portion of said light accumu-
     lation buffer with said observer data and

     displaying resulting image data to a computer
     screen.
Case: 22-1647      Document: 62    Page: 5   Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                               5
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 ’822 patent, col. 12, ll. 4–20.

              B. The District Court Proceedings

                          a. Pre-Trial

     Infernal sued Sony in the Eastern District of Texas for
 infringing the Asserted Claims with certain video games
 and video game consoles (“Accused Products”). Sony de-
 nied infringement and raised the invalidity of the Asserted
 Claims under § 101 as an affirmative defense. Am. Answer
 at 8, Infernal v. Sony, No. 2:19-cv-00248-JRG (E.D. Tex.
 2020) (No. 200). The district court adopted the parties’
 joint proposed claim constructions for several claim terms,
 including, as is most relevant to this appeal, the terms and
 constructions reproduced in following chart.
Case: 22-1647      Document: 62     Page: 6    Filed: 02/02/2024

 6                              INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 Proposed Claim      Patent          Proposed Construction
 Term                Claims
 light image data    '822 Patent,    "for each of the plural-
                     Claim 1         ity of light sources, 2D
                                     data representing the
                     '488 Patent,
                                     light emitted by the
                     Claims 1,
                                     light source to illumi-
                     11,27,50
                                     nate the scene as
                                     viewed from the light
                                     source's perspective"
 light accumula-     '822 Patent,    "memory for storing the
 tion buffei·        Claim 1         light image data for cu-
                                     mulative light falling
                     '488 Patent,
                                     on a region in the ob-
                     Claims 1,
                                     se1·ver image co1·re-
                     11,27
                                     sponding to the
                                     modeled point''

 [ order of the      '822 Patent,    The comparing and
 comparing, stor-    Claim 1         storing steps are com-
 ing, and combin-                    pleted before beginning
                     '488 Patent,
 ing steps]                          the combining step
                     Claims 1,
                     11,27,50
 J.A. 1673 (Joint Claim Construction Chart).

                          b. Trial

     A jury trial began on October 4, 2021. The jury was
 provided with the claim construction chart in their juror
 notebooks at the start of trial. J.A. 585, 11. 13-22.

    In its opening statement, Infernal explained how the
 Asserted Patents improved the prior art before making
Case: 22-1647      Document: 62      Page: 7     Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                    7
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 bare allegations that the Accused Products met the limita-
 tions of the Asserted Claims without any specific reference
 to how the Accused Products infringed. J.A. 592–611.
 Sony responded by drawing a distinction between the As-
 serted Patents and the Accused Products based on the “key
 question” of what the light accumulation buffer stores: ar-
 guing that based on the settled claim construction, the As-
 serted Patents teach the accumulation of data “from the
 light source’s perspective,” taking into account the ob-
 server’s perspective only at the end in the “combining” step,
 whereas the Accused Products take the observer’s perspec-
 tive “into account one light source at a time for the whole
 process.” J.A. 627, ll. 4–17. Sony’s counsel explicitly dis-
 tinguished light falling on an object—what the Asserted
 Patents store—from the light reflected off that object that
 hits the camera—the light that the Accused Products store.
 J.A. 627, l. 22–J.A. 628, ll. 1–25.

      In Infernal’s case-in-chief, it focused primarily on the
 improvements that the Asserted Patents made over the
 prior art. The first discussion of infringement came with
 its second witness, the inventor Mark Randel, who stated
 that he initially suspected infringement when he “read a
 paper on how lighting was done in one of [Sony’s
 games] . . . and [] thought . . . this sounds a little bit famil-
 iar to me.” J.A. 678, ll. 18–21. Infernal then developed its
 infringement theory through the testimony of its expert Dr.
 Hart, who compared selected scenes and the source code
 from the Accused Products to the Asserted Patents, alleg-
 ing that the source code demonstrated that each element of
 the Asserted Claims was practiced by the Accused Prod-
 ucts. J.A. 922–1008. In describing the “light falling [from
 a light source] on a region [in the scene]” that is accumu-
 lated by the “light accumulation buffer” as included in the
 agreed construction, Dr. Hart explained his opinion that
 reflected light satisfies the “light falling on a region” por-
 tion of the claim construction of “light accumulation
 buffer.” J.A. 951–953.
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62      Page: 8    Filed: 02/02/2024

 8                              INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

     In Sony’s case-in-chief, it supported its non-infringe-
 ment theory with three witnesses: Al Hastings, John Hob-
 son, and Dr. Lastra.

     The first witness, Al Hastings, who worked on design-
 ing one of the Accused Products, testified that the Accused
 Products only store light hitting the camera—never from
 the light sources’ perspectives—and that the observer data
 needs to be recorded at the first step of the Accused Prod-
 ucts’ process to determine how the light will hit the camera.
 J.A. 1113–1116; J.A. 1120; J.A. 1122–1124. He also testi-
 fied that the Accused Products use the observer perspective
 data for “[e]very light over and over again,” going one light
 at a time to compute the interaction of the light with the
 material it falls on to determine what reflects to hit the
 camera before accumulating that light. J.A. 1120.

     This testimony was largely echoed by Sony’s second
 witness, John Hobson, who wrote the code for the lighting
 process in a different one of the Accused Products. J.A.
 1173, ll. 9–23. He asserted that the Accused Products per-
 form calculations on the interaction between the light and
 the surface it hits to determine how that light then hits the
 camera, and then store only the light hitting the camera.
 J.A. 1177–78; J.A. 1191–92; J.A. 1218. He distinguished
 this process from the Asserted Patents’ claimed process,
 which he testified “accumulates the light in a perspective
 that’s other than the camera, [and is] . . . only using that
 information to render that image from the camera’s per-
 spective but not actually the light hitting the camera.” J.A.
 1217, ll. 10–13.

     Finally, Sony called its expert witness, Dr. Lastra, who
 described the method in the Asserted Patents as accumu-
 lating the light falling on a region in the scene from the
 perspective of the light source in a “light accumulation
 buffer,” and then, “only after all the light falling on the re-
 gion is stored,” combining the data in the accumulation
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62      Page: 9    Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                  9
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 buffer with the observer data. J.A. 1242, ll. 12–25–J.A.
 1243, l. 1. He also explained that the court’s construction
 of “light accumulation buffer” states that “light image data
 is being stored,” and that the court construed “light image
 data” as “light emitted as viewed from the perspective of
 the light source”; and thus, light falling on the region from
 the perspective of the light source is what is being stored
 in the “light accumulation buffer” in the Asserted Patents.
 J.A. 1245, ll. 1–13, 18–23. Dr. Lastra specifically drew the
 jury’s attention to these constructions in their juror note-
 books and reminded the jury that the “constructions place
 [a] boundary on what the claims mean.” J.A. 1246 ll. 9–24.

     Dr. Lastra also testified that the order of steps in the
 Asserted Claims, as required by the patent and the court’s
 claim construction, had to be that the “comparing” and
 “storing” steps are completed for each individual light be-
 fore beginning the “combining” step. J.A. 1247, ll. 20–25;
 J.A. 1249, ll. 10–11; J.A. 1262, ll. 19–24. Thus, Dr. Lastra
 summarized, to infringe the Asserted Patents, a product
 would have to accumulate light falling on a region from the
 perspective of the light source and can only combine that
 data with the observer perspective data at the end of the
 process. J.A. 1263, ll. 8–18. He concluded that the Accused
 Products did not perform this infringing process; rather,
 they accumulated the light hitting the camera “light-
 source-by-light source . . . using observer data right away.”
 J.A. 1264, ll. 23–25; J.A. 1265, ll. 1–3; J.A. 1266, ll. 12–16;
 J.A. 1270, ll.23–25; J.A. 1271, ll. 1–3. He testified that this
 process is repeated for any additional light sources in the
 scene. See J.A. 1278, ll. 10–12 (“[T]he accumulators are
 combined with observer data from the very first light and
 then every subsequent light you process is combining new
 observer data into accumulators.”)

     On cross-examination, Infernal’s counsel questioned
 Dr. Lastra about his use of the word “all” in his statement
 that the claim construction for the order of steps required
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62      Page: 10    Filed: 02/02/2024

 10                             INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 that the “combining” step could not occur until “all compar-
 ing and storing steps are completed.” J.A. 1297–1302 (em-
 phasis added).      Infernal’s counsel asked Dr. Lastra
 whether it would be infringement if at any point in the
 game the Accused Products performed the steps in the
 claimed order, and then at a different point in the game
 performed the steps again in a different, non-infringing or-
 der. J.A. 1306, ll. 5–24; J.A. 1307, ll. 8–18. In response,
 Dr. Lastra agreed that in this hypothetical situation— “if
 [the Accused Products] had done the steps in the right or-
 der”—there would be infringement. J.A. 1307, ll. 24–25.

      After Sony rested its case, Infernal presented its rebut-
 tal case through its expert witness, Dr. Hart. J.A. 1318;
 J.A. 1320–31. Throughout Dr. Hart’s testimony, he disa-
 greed with Sony’s position—which relied on the district
 court’s construction of “light image data”—that the As-
 serted Claims require that the light accumulation buffer
 store light image data “from the light source’s perspective.”
 J.A. 1320, ll. 19–24; J.A. 1321, ll. 22–25–J.A. 1322, l. 1; J.A.
 1323, ll. 24–25–1324, ll. 1–2; J.A. 1326, ll. 7–12; J.A.1327,
 ll. 2–6. Each time that Infernal attempted to elicit testi-
 mony from Dr. Hart to contradict the position that the As-
 serted Claims require the storage of light image data in the
 light accumulation buffer from the light source’s perspec-
 tive, the district court—in the presence of the jury— sus-
 tained Sony’s objections to the testimony on the ground
 that it was contrary to the settled claim construction of
 “light image data,” which expressly requires the data be
 “viewed from the light source’s perspective.” See J.A.1321
 ll.19–25, J.A. 1322–1324; J.A. 1326, ll. 17–21; J.A. 1327, ll.
 2–21 (“The jury has the [c]ourt’s claim construction for ob-
 server data, light image data, light accumulation buffer,
 and all other terms that the court has construed previ-
 ously. The jury is obligated to apply those definitions to
 the claim language when comparing the claim language to
 the [A]ccused [P]roducts to determine in an ultimate sense
 whether or not those products or methods infringe the
Case: 22-1647    Document: 62      Page: 11    Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                11
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 [A]sserted [C]laims. And we are not going to reopen and
 we are not going to reargue and we are not going to contra-
 dict the court’s plain claim construction.”). After Dr. Hart’s
 testimony, Infernal rested its case. J.A. 1333.

     The jury was charged with determining whether Infer-
 nal had “proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
 [Sony] has infringed any of the following [Asserted
 Claims]” and answered in the negative for each of the As-
 serted Claims. J.A. 1696–97.

                        c. Post-Trial
      Following the jury verdict on non-infringement,
 Infernal filed a motion for a new trial, contending that Sony
 failed to offer legally sufficient evidence to support the
 verdict. Infernal Tech., LLC v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC,
 2022 WL 822110, at *1–2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2022)
 (“Decision”). Specifically, Infernal argued in its motion
 that (1) requiring that the “light image data” stored in the
 “light accumulation buffer” in the “storing” step be “viewed
 from the light source’s perspective” is a legal error; and (2)
 it was legal error for Sony to argue that, in order for the
 Accused Products to infringe, the “sequence of steps” in the
 Asserted Claims required that the Accused Products
 complete the “comparing” and “storing” steps for all light
 sources in a the scene before beginning any “combining”
 step. Id. at *2.

     d. District Court’s Ruling on Motion for New Trial

     The district court determined that Infernal’s first argu-
 ment—that it was legal error to require that the “light im-
 age data” stored in the “light accumulation buffer” be
 “viewed from the light source’s perspective” (“the ‘storing’
 step argument”)—was incompatible with the agreed-upon
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62      Page: 12    Filed: 02/02/2024

 12                             INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 claim constructions for “light accumulation buffer” and
 “light image data.” Decision, 2022 WL 822110, at *3. The
 district court emphasized that both parties agreed during
 claim construction that “light accumulation buffer” means
 “memory for storing the light image data for cumulative
 light falling on a region in the observer image correspond-
 ing to the modeled point” and “light image data” means “for
 each of the plurality of light sources, 2D data representing
 the light emitted by the light source to illuminate the scene
 as viewed from the light source’s perspective.” Id. The dis-
 trict court then reasoned that, “[i]f the construction of ‘light
 image data’ is superimposed within the construction for
 ‘light accumulation buffer,’ the resulting construction is:
 ‘memory for storing 2D data representing the light emitted
 by the light source to illuminate the scene as viewed from
 the light source’s perspective for cumulative light falling on
 a region in the observer image corresponding to the mod-
 eled point.’” Id. (emphasis in original).

     Thus, the district court found the merits of Infernal’s
 argument to be unpersuasive “under the plain language of
 the [c]ourt’s constructions.” 2 Id. The district court further
 explained that Infernal’s reliance on the phrase “in the ob-
 server image” in the construction of “light accumulation
 buffer” was misguided because:

      2   While the district court indicated that it viewed In-
 fernal’s argument as an attempt to impermissibly re-argue
 claim construction—which Infernal maintains on appeal is
 a mischaracterization of its argument—the court neverthe-
 less rejected Infernal’s “storing step” argument on the mer-
 its. See Decision, 2022 WL 822110, at *3 (“[Infernal]
 implicitly acknowledge[s] that if the [c]ourt rejects [Infer-
 nal’s] new claim construction arguments (which it does so
 herein), the jury’s verdict is supported by the evidence pre-
 sented at trial.”).
Case: 22-1647    Document: 62      Page: 13     Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                 13
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

     The storing of “light falling on a region in the ob-
     server image” [] does not mean that such data must
     be from the perspective of the observer or camera,
     nor does it displace the requirement that the data
     stored must be “2D data representing light emitted
     by the light source to illuminate the scene as
     viewed from the light source’s perspective.”

 Id. at n.4 (emphasis in original). Since Infernal’s argument
 that the verdict was against the great weight of the evi-
 dence relied on its “storing” step argument and it did not
 dispute that the Accused Products accumulate the light
 hitting the camera, rather than from the light source’s per-
 spective, the district court concluded that its rejection of
 Infernal’s interpretation of the Asserted Claims meant that
 the verdict was supported by the evidence. Id. at *3.

     The district court also rejected Infernal’s argument re-
 lated to Sony’s “sequence of steps” theory of non-infringe-
 ment, stating that there was “no error in [Sony’s
 theory] . . . [which] is supported by the plain language of
 the agreed constructions and the claim itself.” Id. at *4.
 The district court noted that the parties disputed whether
 Infernal waived its “storing” step and “sequence of steps”
 arguments by failing to object to Sony’s arguments at trial
 but did not decide whether these arguments were waived
 because it rejected them on the merits. Id. at n.6.

     Infernal appealed the district court’s denial of its mo-
 tion for a new trial to this court, and Sony cross-appealed
 the district court’s holding that the Asserted Claims are not
 ineligible for patent protection under § 101. This court has
 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

                          DISCUSSION

     On appeal, Infernal makes two main arguments that
 the district court erred in denying its motion for a new trial:
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62      Page: 14    Filed: 02/02/2024

 14                             INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 (1) the district court led the jury to find non-infringement
 when it misapplied its claim construction by erroneously
 “transplanting [] the entirety of its construction of lan-
 guage in the ‘providing’ step [] into the ‘storing’ limitation”;
 and (2) Sony’s legally flawed alternate non-infringement
 theory misapplied the district court’s claim construction by
 portraying the Asserted Patents as requiring the comple-
 tion of “the ‘providing’ and ‘comparing and storing’ steps for
 all light falling on a region before beginning the combining
 step.” Appellant’s Br. 23–24, 44 (emphasis in original). In-
 fernal contends that these errors led the jury to reach its
 verdict against the great weight of the evidence. Infernal
 also argues that, because the jury’s verdict on non-infringe-
 ment was a general verdict with no specific grounds, this
 Court must order a new trial if it finds that either one of
 the asserted theories of non-infringement fails. Appellant’s
 Br. 42–43 (citing Muth v. Ford Motor Co., 461 F.3d 557, 564
 (5th Cir. 2006)).

      This court reviews a district court’s ruling on a motion
 for a new trial under the law of the regional circuit—here,
 the Fifth Circuit, which reverses a district court’s ruling on
 a new trial “only upon an ‘abuse of discretion or a misap-
 prehension of the law’ by the district court.” Z4 Techs., Inc.
 v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see
 also Industrias Magromer Cueros y Pieles S.A. v. Bayou
 Furs Inc., 293 F.3d 912, 918 (5th Cir. 2003) (“This standard
 of review is somewhat narrower when a new trial is denied
 and somewhat broader when a new trial is granted.”). A
 district court abuses its discretion in ruling on a motion for
 a new trial only if “there is a complete absence of evidence
 to support the verdict.” Industrias, 293 F.3d at 924 (quot-
 ing Sam’s Style Shop v. Cosmos Broad. Corp., 694 F.2d 998,
 1006 (5th Cir. 1982)). A plaintiff is only entitled to a new
 trial if it can demonstrate that the verdict was “against the
 great weight of the evidence, not merely against the pre-
 ponderance of the evidence.” Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual
 Automation Inc., 361 F.3d 831, 838–39 (5th Cir. 2004).
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62     Page: 15    Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                15
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

                               I

                A. The “Storing” Step Argument

     The district court correctly rejected Infernal’s “storing”
 step argument because it conflicts with the agreed-upon
 meaning of “light image data” and with the Asserted Pa-
 tents’ specification and claims.

     Sony contends that Infernal is impermissibly attempt-
 ing to reargue the settled claim construction of “light image
 data” and “light accumulation buffer.” While the district
 court indicated that Infernal’s motion for new trial “seeks
 to reargue claim construction,” it ultimately rejected “[In-
 fernal’s] new claim construction arguments” and found
 that Infernal’s theory that “light image data” does not carry
 a perspective requirement contradicted the settled claim
 constructions on the merits. Decision, 2022 WL 822110, at
 *3. To the extent that Infernal’s arguments can be inter-
 preted as proposing new claim constructions, we reject
 those new construction arguments as untimely; the time to
 contest the settled claim constructions was before the case
 was submitted to the jury, and, most preferably, during the
 Markman process. Thus, we agree with the district court
 that Infernal’s arguments will fail where they contradict
 the agreed-upon constructions of the terms “light image
 data” and “light accumulation buffer.” See id. (“The [c]ourt
 finds that [Infernal’s] argument is contrary to the agreed
 constructions this [c]ourt entered during Markman.”).

      Infernal argues that the verdict was against the great
 weight of the evidence because the district court misap-
 plied the settled claim constructions by improperly import-
 ing the portion of its claim construction of “light image
 data” that required the data to be “viewed from the light
 source’s perspective” to instances of “light image data” used
 in the “storing step”—both in the express claim language
 of that step and in the district court’s claim construction of
Case: 22-1647    Document: 62      Page: 16    Filed: 02/02/2024

 16                             INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 “light accumulation buffer.” Thus, Infernal contends, the
 evidence that the Accused Products store only data from
 the observer’s perspective in the “light accumulation
 buffer” is insufficient to support a verdict of non-infringe-
 ment, since the Asserted Claims do not limit the data
 stored in the “light accumulation buffer” to data “as viewed
 from the light source’s perspective.”

     Infernal contends that the district court’s error was in-
 cluding the entire construction of “light image data” when-
 ever it is used in the claim, and that for the “storing” step,
 “light image data” should not mean “2D data representing
 the light emitted by the light source to illuminate the scene
 as viewed from the light source’s perspective” but instead
 merely “2D data representing the light emitted by the light
 source to illuminate the scene.” J.A. 1673 (Joint Claim
 Construction Chart) (emphasis added). This argument di-
 rectly contradicts the settled claim constructions and fails
 to overcome the presumption that “claim terms are nor-
 mally used consistently throughout the patent.” Phillips v.
 AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also,
 Phonometrics v. Northern Telecom Inc., 133 F.3d 1459,
 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363
 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

      According to Infernal, the district court should not
 have applied “the entirety of its construction of language”
 across every step in representative claim 1. Appellant’s Br.
 24 (emphasis added). However, Infernal agreed to the en-
 tire claim construction of “light image data,” at no point ar-
 guing that the proper construction of that term should not
 include perspective language, or that it should differ based
 on the step in the claims in which it appeared. Addition-
 ally, there is no indication that the entire agreed-upon con-
 struction of “light image data” should apply only in the
 “providing” step in the claim. In fact, the construction of
 “light image data” in the parties’ agreed-upon claim con-
 struction chart explicitly applies to the ’822 patent, claim
Case: 22-1647    Document: 62      Page: 17     Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                 17
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 1, and the ’488 patent, claims 1, 11, and 27—not just to the
 “providing” step in claim 1. J.A. 1673. Thus, we find the
 argument that the district court erred by imputing the en-
 tire, agreed-upon construction of a term to each instance of
 that term’s appearance in the claim unpersuasive. 3

     The cases that Infernal references for support for the
 proposition that claim terms can have inconsistent mean-
 ings across a patent are inapposite to the case at hand. As
 Infernal itself identified, this court has explicitly stated
 that “[a] word or phrase used consistently throughout a
 claim should be interpreted consistently.” Phonometrics,
 133 F.3d at 1465. While it is true that this court, in Micro-
 processor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., in-
 dicated that the use of an antecedent such as “said” before
 a claim term is not sufficient on its own to create a rule that
 the same claim terms are required to carry the same mean-
 ing regardless of context, in that case, the court found that
 there would be an “apparent nonsensical reading under a
 uniform construction” of the term. 520 F.3d 1367, 1376
 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Similarly, Infernal’s reliance on In re
 Jublia, an unpublished case from the District of New Jer-
 sey, was misguided because the claim term at issue in that
 case, “bottom,” took on different meanings throughout the
 claim only because it was used in the clearly different con-
 texts of describing physically distinct components of the

     3   Infernal’s attempt to draw a distinction between
 the “type” of data and the “perspective” of that data is sim-
 ilarly unpersuasive. Infernal argues that while the “type”
 of “light image data” remains consistent throughout the
 Asserted Claims, the “perspective” varies based on the step
 in which the term “light image data” is used. This argu-
 ment is unsupported by the agreed-upon claim construc-
 tion of “light image data,” which expressly included the
 requirement that the data be “viewed from the light
 source’s perspective.”
Case: 22-1647    Document: 62     Page: 18    Filed: 02/02/2024

 18                            INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                       SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 patented device. 2021 WL 100267, at *7 (D.N.J. Jan. 11,
 2021).

     In the present case, “light image data” is used in a con-
 sistent context: the claim describes providing the “lighting
 data including light image data,” comparing a “portion of
 said lighting data” and then “storing at least a portion of
 said light image data” in the “light accumulation buffer.”
 ’822 Patent, col. 12, ll. 8–18. The use of “said” suggests
 consistent usage. Additionally, the claim references “por-
 tions” of the same data and there is no other “light image
 data” to which the claim could be referring, making it clear
 that the term is used consistently across the claim. It is
 not “nonsensical” to assume that the “light image data” ref-
 erenced throughout the claim carries a consistent meaning,
 as nothing contradicts that interpretation. Similarly,
 “light image data” is not being used to qualify different
 components of the invention like “bottom” was in Jublia.

     Further, Infernal’s reliance on words surrounding
 “light image data” when it is used in the claim and in the
 claim construction of “light accumulation buffer” falls short
 of overcoming the presumption that claim terms typically
 carry their construed meaning throughout the patent be-
 cause its arguments are contradicted by the patent itself.

     Infernal’s attempt to argue that the phrase “modeled
 point within said scene,” which appears in the “storing”
 step, indicates that the “light image data” as used in that
 step is from the observer’s perspective rather than the light
 source’s perspective is flawed because nothing in the pa-
 tent indicates that a “modeled point within said scene”
 must be viewed from the observer’s perspective. The
 agreed-upon claim construction of “a modeled point within
 said scene” is “a point on a modeled object within said
 scene,” which—unlike other constructions, including that
 of “light image data”—does not include perspective lan-
 guage. J.A. 1673. The word “scene” is described in the
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62      Page: 19    Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                  19
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 patent specification as being rendered from either the cam-
 era perspective or the light perspective, therefore, the in-
 clusion of “a modeled point within said scene” alone says
 nothing about the perspective of the data associated with
 that point. ’822 patent, col. 7, ll. 4–43.

     For the same reason, Infernal’s argument that apply-
 ing the full construction of “light image data” in the “stor-
 age” step would contradict the use of “associated with said
 point” in that step fails, since this phrase can best be un-
 derstood as identifying the location within the scene where
 the light is falling, rather than the perspective from which
 the light is being viewed. As mentioned above, “said point”
 refers to the “modeled point within said scene,” which does
 not on its own indicate a perspective.

      Infernal’s objection to the district court’s application of
 the entire construction of “light image data” to that term’s
 use within the construction of “light accumulation buffer”
 also fails. The district court, adopting the proposed con-
 struction that Infernal and Sony agreed to, determined
 that “light accumulation buffer” means “memory for stor-
 ing the light image data for cumulative light falling on a
 region in the observer image corresponding to the modeled
 point.” J.A. 1673. Infernal’s argument that “in the ob-
 server image” necessitates the observer perspective, and
 therefore prevents the “light image data for cumulative
 light falling on a region” to be from the light source’s per-
 spective, is misguided and ignores the perspective lan-
 guage explicitly included in the construction of “light image
 data.” Infernal points to no evidence that “observer image”
 is the same as “observer data” from “the observer’s perspec-
 tive”—even though in other instances of claim construction
 where the district court intended the terms to be from the
 observer’s perspective, it explicitly said so. See J.A. 1672
 (“observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene”
 means “data representing at least the color of objects in a
 simulated multi-dimensional scene as viewed from an
Case: 22-1647        Document: 62                         Page: 20                 Filed: 02/02/2024

 20                                      INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                                 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 observer’s perspective” (emphasis added)); J.A. 1673 (“ob-
 server data associated with a simulated multi-dimensional
 scene” means “data representing at least the color of ob-
 jects in a simulated multi-dimensional scene as viewed
 from the observer’s perspective” (emphasis added)).

     Additionally, the order of the steps outlined in the As-
 serted Claims further supports that “in the observer im-
 age” is a reference point and not a description of the
 perspective of the data stored in the “light accumulation
 buffer.” Figure 4 of the Asserted Patents, pictured below,
 demonstrates that the camera view pixels are transformed
 to the light source view before they are stored in the light
 accumulation buffer, and that the camera view pictures are
 compared to the “light image data” from the “light accumu-
 lation buffer” after the data is stored in the buffer.

                                                             102

                                 RENO(R UCHT SOURCC '11EW    104

             REPEAT FOR   112
             EACH UCHT            TRAHSl"ORM CAMERA '11EW
               SOURCE            PIXEL(S) TO UCHT SOURCE
                                            'l1EW            106
                                                                    REPIEAT FOR     110
                                                                   EACH PIXEL(S)
                                  F TRAHSl"ORMED PIXEL(S)
                                 IS(AAE) UGHTEO. THEN ADO    108
                                OORRESl'ONOINC UCHT SOURCE
                                    IMM;( (llJA TO UCHT
                                   /CCUMLI.ATION eurrER

                                                                    REPIEAT fOR
                                                                   EACH PIXEL(S)    110
                                   MUI.TlPI.Y CAMERA '11EW
                                PIXEL(S) BY CORRESPONOINC
                                    LICHT ACCUMLI.ATION
                                    eurrER lllTA VALUES      114

                                    RENDER AHO OISPLAY       118
                                    nw. CAMERA IMAGE

                                            NO

 ’822 patent, Fig. 4.
Case: 22-1647    Document: 62      Page: 21     Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                 21
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

      The specification explains this in further detail, stating
 that “in step 106, a pixel [] in camera image [] is trans-
 formed or otherwise used to determine a corresponding
 pixel [] in light [] image” and “[i]n step 108 [(the storage of
 the data in the light accumulation buffer)], if the trans-
 formed pixel identified in step 106 is illuminated by the
 light source, then the corresponding pixel data value in the
 light image is added to the light accumulation buffer.” ’822
 patent, col. 8, ll. 45–48, 57–60 (emphasis added). There-
 fore, the “observer image” referenced in the district court’s
 construction is a reference point to the corresponding loca-
 tion of the data in the scene of objects to be digitally repre-
 sented and is not a reference to the perspective of the data
 that is being stored. Thus, interpreting “light image data”
 to be from “the light source’s perspective” does not read “in
 the observer image” out of the district court’s construction
 of “light accumulation buffer.”

     Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion
 in rejecting Infernal’s argument that it was a misapplica-
 tion of the claim construction of “light image data” to con-
 clude that that data is “viewed from the light source’s
 perspective” wherever the term “light image data” is used
 in the Asserted Claims. Thus, the jury’s non-infringement
 verdict was supported by the evidence that the Accused
 Products only stored “light image data” from the observer’s
 perspective in the “light accumulation buffer.”

            B. The “Sequence of Steps” Argument

      Infernal does not dispute the “sequence of steps” con-
 struction that requires the “comparing” and “storing” steps
 be completed before beginning the “combining” step. How-
 ever, Infernal argues that the district court erred by requir-
 ing this sequence for all light sources in the scene rather
 than for a specific plurality of light sources, and that Sony
 failed to identify a plurality of light sources that did not
Case: 22-1647     Document: 62      Page: 22    Filed: 02/02/2024

 22                             INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                        SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 perform the claimed sequence of steps. Both arguments
 fail.

      The district court did not err in its application of its
 “sequence of steps” claim construction. Infernal’s position,
 as explained by the district court, is that all steps for a par-
 ticular light source in a scene must be completed before the
 steps begin on the next light source; on the other hand,
 Sony contends that because the claims state “for each of
 said plurality of light sources, comparing . . . and stor-
 ing . . . ; and then combining” must occur, the data from
 each light source illuminating the scene must be compared
 and stored before the combining step can occur for any light
 source. Decision, 2022 WL 822110, at *4. Given each
 party’s proposed application of the claim construction, the
 district court agreed with Sony that the “plain language of
 the [c]ourt’s construction along with the claim language it-
 self show that ‘for each of said plurality of light sources’ the
 comparing and storing steps are to be completed before the
 combining step.” Id.

      The district court’s construction of the sequence of
 steps is not limited to any specific plurality of light sources.
 Thus, Infernal’s contention that Sony failed to identify a
 plurality of light sources that did not perform the sequence
 of steps in the claimed order is not relevant, and Sony’s ev-
 idence that the Accused Products never perform the se-
 quence of steps in the claimed order for any of the light
 sources in the scene is sufficient to show non-infringement.
 Id. at *4. Since Sony provided sufficient evidence at trial
 to show that the Accused Products did not perform the
 claimed sequence of steps for any light source, the hypo-
 thetical situation that Infernal’s counsel posed at trial and
 continues to use as support on appeal is irrelevant. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 46. The district court’s application of the settled
 claim construction, therefore, is not legal error.
Case: 22-1647    Document: 62       Page: 23    Filed: 02/02/2024

 INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.                                 23
 SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

     Since the district court did not abuse its discretion in
 accepting both of Sony’s non-infringement theories,
 whether this court would have had to order a new trial if
 one of the non-infringement theories was legally erroneous
 is not at issue and need not be addressed.

                               II

     In addition to its non-infringement arguments, Sony
 asserted as an affirmative defense that the Asserted
 Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 pursuant to Alice
 Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). In
 particular, Sony argued that the Asserted Claims are
 drawn to an ineligible abstract idea under Alice step one
 and involve only technologies and activities that were well-
 known to a person of ordinary skill before the Asserted Pa-
 tent applications were filed, and thus are ineligible under
 Alice step two for lacking an “inventive concept.” Id. at 217.
 The district court submitted the Alice step two question to
 the jury, which found that the Asserted Claims failed to
 satisfy the step two test for patentability. After separate,
 post-trial briefing, the district court held as a matter of law
 that the Asserted Patents are not drawn to an abstract
 idea, and thus satisfy the eligibility test of § 101. Infernal
 Tech., LLC v. Sony Interactive Ent. LLC, 2021 WL
 5804262, at *3–5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2021).

     Sony’s cross-appeal challenges the district court’s hold-
 ing that the Asserted Claims are not drawn to ineligible
 subject matter, but conditions its presentation of this chal-
 lenge on reversal by this court of the denial of Infernal’s
 motion for a new trial. At oral argument, Sony expressly
 stated that its cross-appeal is conditional, and verbally
 agreed to withdraw its cross-appeal if the court rules in its
Case: 22-1647    Document: 62     Page: 24    Filed: 02/02/2024

 24                            INFERNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC v.
                       SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC

 favor on Infernal’s appeal. 4 Because we hold in Sony’s fa-
 vor on Infernal’s appeal, Sony’s cross-appeal is deemed
 withdrawn.

                        CONCLUSION

     Accordingly, and for the above reasons, we affirm the
 district court’s denial of Infernal’s motion for a new trial.

                        AFFIRMED

                            COSTS
 Costs against appellant in Appeal No. 2022-1647. Each
 side to bear its own costs in Appeal No. 2022-1739.

      4 Oral Arg. at 24:38–24:50, https://oralargu-
 ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1647_1207202
 3.mp3.