In TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., [2016-1562] (March 21, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed jury verdicts that U.S. Patent No. 6,889,168 was invalid and not infringed because substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial.

TVIIM argued that the jury rendered an inconsistent verdict of infringement and invalidity because the claim terms “as a result of/in response to,” “various utility functions,” and “reporting the discovered vulnerabilities” have more than one ordinary meaning.

The Federal Circuit noted, however, that TVIIM did not seek construction of any of the terms and never asserted that the terms had multiple meanings.  The Federal Circuit said that TVIIM cannot be allowed to create a new claim construction dispute following the close of the jury trial.  The Federal Circuit went on to find that substantial evidence supported the jury verdict.