district court denied Microsoft’s motions, and the case was submitted to the jury. The
jury found that Word infringed all asserted claims of the ’449 patent. The jury further
found that the patent was not invalid, and that Microsoft’s infringement was willful. It
awarded $200 million in damages.
After trial, Microsoft renewed its motions for JMOL on infringement, validity, and
willfulness. In the alternative, Microsoft moved for a new trial on these issues based on
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings. Microsoft also argued it
was entitled to a new trial based on errors in the claim construction, evidentiary rulings,
and jury instructions. The district court denied Microsoft’s motions. It granted i4i’s
motion for a permanent injunction and awarded $40 million in enhanced damages.
Microsoft now appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Microsoft raises numerous issues on appeal.
First, Microsoft challenges the
district court’s construction of the claim term “distinct.” Second, Microsoft challenges
the jury’s validity finding, urging us to find that the ’449 patent was anticipated or
obvious as a matter of law, or at least grant a new trial on those issues. Third, Microsoft
argues that the jury’s infringement finding must be set aside because it is unsupported
by substantial evidence. Fourth, Microsoft challenges the damages award, specifically
the admission of certain expert testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
the award. Finally, Microsoft challenges the issuance and terms of the permanent
injunction. We address each of these issues in turn.