Brunswick Corp., 649 F.2d 1049, 1054-55 (5th Cir. 1981). The testimony of Wecker,
the expert who helped design the survey, sufficed to show that the survey was compiled
in accordance with acceptable survey methods.
For these reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
B. Reasonableness of the Damages Award
Microsoft urges us to follow this court’s recent decision in Lucent, 580 F.3d 1301,
and hold that $200 million is not a reasonable royalty. We cannot, however, because
the procedural posture of this case differs from Lucent, and that difference controls this
case. Although Microsoft now objects to the size of the damages award, we cannot
reach that question because Microsoft did not file a pre-verdict JMOL on damages.
In Lucent, the accused infringer filed a pre-verdict JMOL motion challenging the
similarly filed a pre-verdict JMOL, for whatever reason, it chose not to. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 50(a). On appeal, what that strategic decision means for Microsoft is that we cannot
decide whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury’s damages award.
Cf. Lucent, 580 F.3d at 1332 (holding that “we see little evidentiary basis under
“reasonable,” “grossly excessive or monstrous,” “based only on speculation or
guesswork,” or “clearly not supported by the evidence,” are simply different ways of
asking whether the jury’s award is supported by the evidence. Fuji Photo, 394 F.3d at
1378; Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2002).