to conclude that the relevant “material or apparatus” was the custom XML editor, not all
of Word. Accordingly, the jury was properly instructed that it should focus on the editor,
not all of Word. See Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Microsoft also challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury’s
infringement was tried to a jury, we review the verdict only for substantial evidence.
ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co., 501 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Before we consider the evidence, we pause briefly to address what errors are
fatal to a general verdict. Different rules apply depending upon whether the flaw is in
the legal theory or the evidence. We must set aside a general verdict if the jury was told
it could rely on any of two or more independent legal theories, one of which was
defective. Walther, 952 F.2d at 126; see Northpoint Tech., Ltd. v. MDS Am., Inc., 413
F.3d 1301, 1311-12 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, we will not set aside a general verdict
“simply because the jury might have decided on a ground that was supported by
insufficient evidence.” Walther, 952 F.2d at 126 (emphasis added). We will uphold
such a verdict if there was sufficient evidence to support any of the plaintiff’s alternative
factual theories; we assume the jury considered all the evidence and relied upon a
factual theory for which the burden of proof was satisfied. See Northpoint Tech., 413
F.3d at 1311-12.
In this case, Microsoft argues that the general verdict must be set aside unless
both of i4i’s alternative legal theories, contributory infringement and induced