United States: Federal Circuit To Judge Posner: eBay Analysis Is A Must

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (in a case that attracted a dozen amici briefs) affirmed a district court ruling by Circuit Judge Posner (sitting by designation) that the holder of the FRAND-encumbered SEP patent in this case was not entitled to injunctive relief, but insisted that there is no per se rule covering such patents and that an eBay analysis is nevertheless required.

In a closely watched case involving a high profile circuit court judge sitting (by designation) at trial and raising the hot button issue of whether the holder of a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, or FRAND-encumbered standard essential patent (SEP) was in essence barred from seeking injunctive relief, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (in a case that attracted a dozen amici briefs) affirmed Judge Posner's ruling that the holder of the FRAND-encumbered patent in this case was not entitled to injunctive relief, but insisted that an eBay analysis is nevertheless required.  Apple, Inc. et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-1548; -1549 (Fed. Cir. April 25, 2014) (Reyna, J.) (Rader, C. J., dissenting in part) (Prost, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part).

Apple and Next Software (Apple) sued Motorola and Motorola Mobility (Motorola), asserting infringement of 15 patents.  Motorola counterclaimed, asserting six of its own patents.  Judge Posner, sitting by designation, short-circuited a jury trial by granting summary judgment as to all claims on grounds of non-infringement (in view of his construction of certain claim terms) and on grounds of insufficient evidence to show damages or the right to injunctive relief (the latter in view of his earlier decision to exclude the vast majority of both parties' damages expert evidence).  Judge Posner also suggested that Motorola was precluded from injunctive relief on its FRAND-encumbered SEP ( IP Update, Vol. 15, No. 7).

Both parties appealed.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit considered the issues of claim construction, the sufficiency of expert damage reports to show entitlement to a statutory "reasonable royalty" and whether the parties' claims for injunctive relief were properly denied under eBay.

Means-Plus-Function Claim Element and "Inherent" Structure

With regard to one of the Apple patents in suit, the Federal Circuit explained that Judge Posner committed error as to certain means-plus-function claim limitations.  The patent is directed to controlling a touchscreen device with finger gestures.  The claims recited reading a user's finger gestures using "heuristics" (rules) to determine commands for the device:

a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determining that the one or more finger contacts correspond to a one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional screen translation command based on an angle of initial movement of a finger contact with respect to the touch screen display.

Judge Posner determined that notwithstanding the absence of the term "means," the claim limitation was nonetheless a "means-plus-function" claim element, the function of the heuristic being the "determining" term.

Writing for the majority, Judge Reyna disagreed, finding that Motorola had failed to rebut the "strong presumption" that, as here, claims are not means-plus-function claims when the term "means" is not used.  Rather, Reyna explained that the term "heuristic" has an inherent structure and meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art that prevents its treatment as a means-plus-function claim term.

On this issue, Judge Prost, in dissent, argued that the majority wrongly conflated the two-step means-plus-function claim analysis into a single step.  Rather than first determining whether the claimed "heuristic" term was a means-plus-function claim element, then determining whether there was sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed function, Prost argued that the majority simply looked for sufficient corresponding structure.  In Prost's opinion, the term "heuristic" is a "vague concept that does not connote known, physical structure."  Prost did however, disagree with Judge Posner's identified corresponding structure to the claimed function, finding it too limiting given the abundance of disclosure in the specification regarding finger gestures and related "heuristics." 

The Bar for Admissibility of Damages Testimony

The Federal Circuit next addressed whether the parties' damages experts' testimony was sufficient to show a reasonable royalty.  Judge Posner had excluded each parties' expert on damages, and granted summary judgment against most of the parties' claims, concluding that neither was entitled to receive any damages.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that insofar as certain Apple patents were concerned, Judge Posner's erroneous claim construction "alone, would require reversal and remand because the erroneous claim construction tainted the district court's damages analysis."

The court also concluded that Judge Posner failed to consider the full scope of the expert opinions, explaining that rather than focusing on the reliability of the principles and methods used or the sufficiency of the facts and data relied upon, the district court substituted its own opinion.  As an example, one of Apple's experts isolated the value of finger gestures used in an Apple "Trackpad" product to estimate the value of the figure gesture heuristics, an analysis that the district court found inadequate: "The fact that many consumers will pay more for a Magic Trackpad than for a mouse tells one nothing about what they will pay to avoid occasionally swiping unsuccessfully because their swiping finger wasn't actually vertical to the screen."

The Federal Circuit explained that the district court erred when it focused on just the heuristic limitation because the "proper inquiry evaluates the expert's methodology in view of the full scope of the infringed claims."  Here, the court found that the methodology used by Apple's damages expert was "the product of reliable principles and methods."  The expert had attempted to isolate the value of the claimed features in an existing commercial product; relied on technical expert testimony; compared the computed reasonable royalty to related licenses; and addressed the possibility of removing the asserted features from the accused devices.  The court concluded that such methodology and testimony was admissible.  The Federal Circuit faulted Judge Posner for acting as both the gate-keeper and the fact-finder, when he should be only the gate-keeper:

Whether [Apple's expert's] testimony was the product of reliable principles and methods is the focus of admissibility; whether the testimony produced a correct degree of estimation of the value of the ... patent is a factual consideration reserved for the fact finder.  Here, the district court resolved admissibility based upon its own view on the correct estimate of value for the ... patent, a question that should have been reserved for the jury.

While Judge Prost concurred with the majority's reversal of the exclusion of Apple's expert's testimony, she agreed with the district court that use of the Magic Trackpad to calculate the value of the claimed functionality was unreliable because that product was not a sufficiently comparable benchmark, "as even Apple concedes, the Trackpad contains none of the function asserted from the ... patent."  According to Prost, this established a "highly questionable" starting point for a damages analysis—one that was properly excluded.

In connection with a different Apple patent, the district court excluded Apple's damages expert's testimony because that expert had relied on the testimony of Apple's technical expert in forming his opinions.  The district court's concern was that one Apple expert relying on another Apple expert created unfair bias.  The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that, "[e]xperts routinely rely upon other experts hired by the party they represent for expertise outside of their field."  Any bias in the damages calculations should be addressed by the jury, i.e., deciding what weight should be given to such testimony and the testimony of the other expert relied on.  "To the extent bias exists, cross-examination and the testimony of an opposing expert may be used to expose it. ... The issue is one of evidentiary weight and not admissibility."

For another of Apple's patents, the district court excluded Apple's damages testimony, and granted summary judgment that Apple was not entitled to any damages (not even a nominal reasonable royalty) for lack of evidence—even though Motorola had conceded infringement.

The Federal Circuit reversed, explaining that under 35 U.S. C. § 284, unless the evidence shows otherwise, the damages amount cannot be zero: "Finding that a royalty estimate may suffer from factual flaws does not, by itself, support the legal conclusion that zero is a reasonable royalty."  Rather, a court must award damages "in no event less than a reasonable royalty."  Thus, where infringement is found, the jury is required to determine what royalty is supported by the record, even if the amount is nominal.  As the court explained, an award of zero damages is appropriate only when the record in fact supports a zero royalty award.  But here, the court explained, Apple had presented evidence that the patent features held value because it showed consumer demand for the claimed features that would have taken Motorola months to design around.

As for Motorola's patent damage position, after the district court excluded all of Motorola's proposed damages testimony, it granted Apple's motion for summary judgment that Motorola was entitled to no damages.  While the Federal Circuit affirmed the exclusion of one of Motorola's experts, a licensing expert who admitted he "knew nothing" about the patent and that he had chosen an arbitrary licensing rate not tied to the claimed invention, it reversed as to the remainder of Motorola's damages testimony.

That remaining testimony included a reasonable royalty analysis of license agreements between Motorola and "all of the major" cellular phone makers in the United States, except for Apple.  All of the license agreements treated the patent as an SEP—one of many such patents in Motorola's standard-essential patent portfolio.  The expert's approach was to separate the value of the patent in issue from the total value of the portfolio and then analyze the design around value for not using certain cellular network types covered by the patent.  This methodology was found sufficiently reliable to be admitted.  The Federal Circuit explained that the district court "failed to recognize that [Motorola's expert] did construct a cost estimate typically relied upon when calculating patent damages—the cost to license the technology."  Whether the "licenses are sufficiently comparable such that Motorola's calculation is a reasonable royalty goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility."

Injunctions: It's All About eBay

The court next addressed whether Apple was entitled to an injunction for any of its patents, and whether Motorola was entitled to an injunction for its patent, even though it was standard essential.

The Federal Circuit first vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment against Apple's request for an injunction on the basis of its reversal of the claim constructions for those patents.

On this issue Judge Prost dissented, arguing that the first eBay injunction factor—irreparable harm—was sufficiently dispositive, and so, would have affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, denying Apple an injunction.  In Prost's opinion, Apple failed to show sufficient evidence to establish a causal nexus between consumer demand and infringement of the claimed features, which was required to meet the "irreparable harm" prong of the eBay test.

Turning to Motorola's request for injunction, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against Motorola.  However, the court noted that the district court erred to the extent it applied a per se rule finding no injunction would lie for any FRAND-encumbered SEP.  As the court explained, such a rule ignores the analysis mandated by eBay ( IP Update, Vol. 9, No. 5), explaining that even a FRAND-encumbered SEP may possibly be the basis for an injunction under eBay, such as where the "infringer unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect."  However, the court recognized that such occurrences would likely be rare.

Judge Rader, dissenting on this issue, argued that there was enough evidence in the record to support the conclusion that Apple was unwilling to license Motorola's SEP patents and that Motorola should have been afforded an opportunity to prove that at trial.

Judge Prost, while concurring in the judgment, dissented as to the circumstances under which an injunction might be appropriate when a FRAND-encumbered SEP is at issue.  Rather than look to when an "infringer unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect," in Prost's view "an injunction might be appropriate where, although monetary damages could compensate for the patentee's injuries, the patentee is unable to collect the damages to which it is entitled."

Practice Note: eBay remains the test for injunctive relief and any request for an injunction must include an eBay analysis, even for FRAND-encumbered SEPs.  In other words, there is no per se rule.  But to prevail in a request for injunctive relief, an SEP owner will be required to prove that the alleged "infringer unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect."  It may be possible to address the issue as suggested by Judge Prost, i.e., by establishing that "although monetary damages could compensate for the patentee's injuries, the patentee is unable to collect the damages to which it is entitled," but whether that will ultimately attract a panel majority is an issue for another day.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions