limitations of the asserted claims because the editor separated a document into a “CP
stream” of content and a separate data structure containing the metacodes and their
addresses of use. Rhyne testified that this separate data structure met the “metacode
map” limitation. Though Microsoft’s expert offered conflicting evidence, opining that
Word did not infringe the asserted claims, the jury was free to disbelieve Microsoft’s
expert and credit i4i’s expert, who testified that the ’449 patent was infringed if Word
was used to open an XML document, edit an XML document, or save a document
containing custom XML in an XML file format. The joint stipulation and Microsoft’s
interrogatory responses unequivocally state that Word was used in these ways. Cf.
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298-99 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Martek, 579 F.3d at 1371-72.
2. Contributory Infringement
For contributory infringement, the question is whether there is substantial
infringement if that party sells, or offers to sell, a material or apparatus for use in
practicing a patented process. That “material or apparatus” must be a material part of
the invention, have no substantial noninfringing uses, and be known (by the party) “to
be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent.” 35
U.S.C. § 271(c); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d
1293, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have reasonably
concluded that the custom XML editor had no substantial, noninfringing uses and that
Microsoft knew that the use of the custom XML editor would infringe i4i’s patent. At