Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 426
(2007) did not change the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
Thus, based on our precedent, we cannot discern any error in the jury instructions.
Taking Microsoft’s arguments with regard to infringement in turn, we first review
the jury instructions on infringement. We then decide whether the verdict is supported
by substantial evidence.
A. Jury Instructions
At trial, i4i presented three theories of liability: direct, contributory, and induced
infringement. Over Microsoft’s objection, the district court used a general verdict form,
which did not require separate findings on the different theories. Instead, the form
Claims 14, 18, or 20 of the ’449 patent?” The form then instructed the jury to answer
“yes” or “no” for each claim. The jury answered “yes” for all asserted claims.
On appeal, Microsoft argues that it is entitled to a new trial because of two
Microsoft argues it was error to use the term “component” rather than “material or
apparatus.” In relevant part, the instructions provided:
If you find someone has directly infringed the ’449 patent, then contributory infringement exists if i4i establishes by a preponderance of evidence that:
Microsoft sold, offered for sale, or imported;
A material component for use in practicing the patented claim—or patented method that is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use;
With knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner.