“During the patent infringement jury trial in this case, the district court found defendant-respondent Apple, Inc. (‘Apple’) had ‘waived’ any construction for a key claim limitation. The court thus instructed the jury to give the limitation its ‘plain and ordinary meaning as viewed from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art [POSITA].’ The jury heard expert testimony on that meaning in the relevant technical context. The jury then found for plaintiff-petitioner Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (‘WARF’) on infringement. But on appeal, the Federal Circuit construed the limitation for the first time, while disregarding the jury’s fact-finding role. Instead of assessing whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s implicit fact findings regarding the limitation’s ordinary meaning to a POSITA, the Federal Circuit construed the limitation de novo, stating ‘our view’ of its meaning. Then, instead of remanding for further proceedings, the Federal Circuit applied its new claim construction to the existing trial record to grant JMOL of noninfringement. The questions presented are as follows:”
1. “Where the district court properly instructed the jury to give a claim limitation its ‘plain and ordinary meaning as viewed from the perspective of a [POSITA],’ does Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2015), allow the Federal Circuit to construe that limitation de novo, giving no deference to the jury’s implicit fact findings regarding a POSITA’s understanding?”
2. “May the Federal Circuit apply a new claim construction issued on appeal to grant JMOL based on a trial record developed without that construction, instead of remanding for proceedings consistent with the new claim construction?”
