Finesse Wireless LLC v. at&tmobility LLC, Nokia of America Corporation

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
FINESSE WIRELESS LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
AT&T MOBILITY LLC, NOKIA OF AMERICA
CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellants
ERICSSON, INC.,
Defendant
______________________
2024-1039
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:21-cv-00316-JRG-RSP,
2:21-cv-00317-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
Decided: September 24, 2025
______________________
PAUL D. C LEMENT, Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexan-
dria, VA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by
C. H ARKER RHODES , IV, K EVIN WYNOSKY; SHAWN D ANIEL
BLACKBURN , M EGAN E. G RIFFITH , JOSEPH SAMUEL
G RINSTEIN , M ENG X I, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
JEFFREY A. L AMKEN , MoloLamken LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for all defendants-appellants. Defendant-
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 1 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 1 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 2
appellant Nokia of America Corporation also represented
by JENNIFER E LIZABETH FISCHELL, K AYVON G HAYOUMI,
RAYINER H ASHEM .
M ICHAEL H AWES , Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX, for
defendant-appellant AT&T Mobility LLC. Also repre-
sented by S USAN K ENNEDY, D OUGLAS M. K UBEHL.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, LINN and CUNNINGHAM,
Circuit Judges.
M OORE, Chief Judge.
AT&T Mobility LLC (AT&T) and Nokia of America
Corporation (Nokia; collectively, Appellants) appeal the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas’ denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of
noninfringement for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,346,134 and 9,548,775. Appellants also appeal the
district court’s denial of a new trial on damages. For the
following reasons, we reverse the denial of JMOL and va-
cate the damages award.
BACKGROUND
Finesse Wireless LLC (Finesse) owns the ’134 and ’775
patents, which generally relate to methods for mitigating
intermodulation product (IMP)1 interference in radios.
1 Radios avoid signal interference by operating on
different frequencies, but their transmit signals can com-
bine when encountering obstacles (e.g., metal fences, loose
cable connections, rusted connectors) to form new frequen-
cies called “intermodulation products” (IMPs). J.A. 14892,
14920. IMPs caused by passive obstacles are called “pas-
sive intermodulation products” (PIM). J.A. 14895.
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 2 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 2 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 3
’134 patent at Abstract, 1:23–27; ’775 patent at Abstract,
1:19–24. Finesse sued AT&T for allegedly infringing
claims 1–3 of the ’134 patent and claims 1, 4, 9, 16, 21, 29,
and 36 of the ’775 patent by using the PIM cancellation
(PIM-C) feature in Nokia radios. J.A. 267–87. Nokia in-
tervened. J.A. 389–90.
The jury found all asserted claims valid and infringed,
and awarded $166,303,391 in lump-sum damages for the
remaining life of the ’134 and ’775 patents. J.A. 169–71.
Appellants moved for JMOL of noninfringement, JMOL on
damages, and a new trial, all of which the district court de-
nied. J.A. 1–72. Appellants appeal. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
I. JMOL of Noninfringement
We review a district court’s denial of JMOL under the
law of the regional circuit, here the Fifth Circuit. Wi-LAN,
Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 461 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
Fifth Circuit reviews denials of JMOL de novo, reversing
“only if, when viewing the evidence in the light most favor-
able to the verdict, the evidence points so strongly and
overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court be-
lieves that reasonable jurors could not arrive at any con-
trary conclusion.” Id. (citing Fifth Circuit law).
We review a jury’s finding of infringement for substan-
tial evidence. Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., 25 F.4th 960, 969
(Fed. Cir. 2022). “A factual finding is supported by sub-
stantial evidence if a reasonable jury could have found in
favor of the prevailing party in light of the evidence pre-
sented at trial.” Id. (internal citations omitted). We review
Internal PIM is caused by mechanical issues inside the ra-
dio, while external PIM is caused by sources outside the
radio. J.A. 15223–24.
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 3 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 3 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 4
claim construction de novo and any underlying factual find-
ings supporting the district court’s construction for clear
error. Wi-LAN, 811 F.3d at 461.
A. ’134 Patent
The ’134 patent claims a method for reducing IMP in-
terference by isolating “signals of interest” from “interfer-
ence generating signals” and then canceling out the
“interference generating signals” using a computed esti-
mate of the IMPs. ’134 patent at Abstract, 2:1–18. Claim 1
is representative.
1. A method comprising:
[a] over-sampling, at a desired frequency, a pass-
band of received signals to create a bit stream,
wherein the received signals include signals of
interest and interference generating signals,
the interference generating signals capable of gener-
ating intermodulation products inband of the signals
of interest;
[b] isolating signals of interest in the bit stream us-
ing one or more decimating filters;
[c] isolating source signals that generate one or more
intermodulation products inband of the signal of in-
terest using one or more decimating filters;
[d] computing an estimate of each of the one or more
intermodulation products from the source signals
that generate the one or more intermodulation prod-
ucts;
[e] cancelling out one or more inband intermodula-
tion products using the estimate of the intermodula-
tion products; and
[f] performing phase and amplitude adjustment on
estimations of the intermodulation product interfer-
ing signals in a closed loop manner, wherein
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 4 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 4 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 5
performing phase and amplitude adjustment of the
estimations comprises performing sub-sample phase
shifts to make a phase adjustment on the estima-
tions of the intermodulation product interfering sig-
nals.
Id. at 28:2–26 (emphases added).
As the plaintiff, Finesse bore the burden of proving the
accused radios sample a passband of signals that includes
both the “signals of interest” and “interference generating
signals.” Id. at 28:1–6 (limitation 1[a]). Appellants argue
Finesse failed to show the accused radios sample the “sig-
nals of interest” and “interference generating signals.” Ap-
pellants Br. 35–45. We agree.
At trial, Finesse’s infringement expert, Dr. Jonathan
Wells, testified the accused radios infringe the asserted
claims of the ’134 patent by relying on a Nokia technical
document depicting how the accused radios operate. See
J.A. 14914–21, 15009–19; J.A. 26421 (Nokia document, re-
produced below).
Finesse Br. 15 (annotating J.A. 26421).
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 5 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 5 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 6
Dr. Wells testified the radio frequency analog-to-digital
converter (RF ADC, depicted in blue box) is a receiver that
samples the claimed “signals of interest” and “interference
generating signals” (both depicted in dashed red path) to
create a bit stream. J.A. 14914 at 46:8–10, 14918 at 50:20–
24, 14925 at 57:3–8. Dr. Wells consistently and repeatedly
testified he mapped “signals of interest” to the downlink
transmit (DL(TX)) reference and “interference generating
signals” to the modeled PIM path (both depicted in the
dashed red path as explained in red box under legend). See,
e.g., J.A. 14918 at 50:16–19 (“The downlink TX reference is
the signal of interest.”), 14920–21 at 52:22–53:1 (“the
model PIM path would be . . . the signal [that] is causing
the intermodulation products in band at the signal of inter-
est”), 15009 at 141:10–14 (“[Q.] So here you identified the
modeled PIM path to be the interference generating signals
capable of generating intermodulation products in-band of
the signal of interest. Correct? A. Yes, I did.”). Dr. Wells’
expert report similarly opined “[t]he ‘DL (TX) reference’
signal . . . meets the agreed construction of a ‘signal(s) of
interest’” and “the ‘modeled PIM signal’ is the ‘interference
generating signal.’” J.A. 4476–77 ¶ 343.
On cross-examination, Appellants’ counsel pointed out
the RF ADC cannot sample the modeled PIM path because
the modeled PIM path is generated downstream of the RF
ADC after sampling occurs, and signals cannot be sampled
before they are generated. J.A. 15010 at 142:12–14; see
also J.A. 15010–11 at 142:21–143:5, 15019 at 151:4–13.
The result being that the modeled PIM path cannot be the
claimed “interference generating signals.” In response, Dr.
Wells pivoted and testified, “there’s two signals on that red
path because we know that because there’s the x1 and the
x2.” J.A. 15010 at 142:15–16. Dr. Wells did not testify that
x1 and x2 map onto the “signals of interest” and “interfer-
ence generating signals” and instead continued to testify
“the – two signals are the downlink TX reference and the
modeled PIM path.” J.A. 15010 at 142:19–20; see also
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 6 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 6 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 7
J.A. 15011 at 143:20–22 (“[T]he red path is the downlink
TX reference and the modeled PIM path. It’s the two sig-
nals.”), 15017 at 149:7–9 (“[Q.] But you identify the inter-
ference generating signal as the modeled PIM path?
Correct? A. Yes, that’s right. . . . the second signal on that
red path.”), 15017 at 149:12–13 (“[T]he red path is the
downlink TX reference and the modeled PIM path.”).
When asked to clarify whether he was testifying “x1 is the
modeled PIM path,” he responded, “I’m saying that x1 and
x2 are the two inputs here that are represented by those
two signals that are on the red path.” J.A. 15018 at
150:16–18. Again, he did not map x1 or x2 onto either the
“signals of interest” or the “interference generating sig-
nals” as required by the claims. The jury found all asserted
claims of the ’134 patent infringed. J.A. 169.
At JMOL, Appellants argued Dr. Wells mapped “inter-
ference generating signals” to the modeled PIM path and
there can be no infringement because the accused radios’
receiver does not sample a passband of received signals
that includes interference generating signals since those
signals are not generated until after sampling occurs.
J.A. 19–20. The court acknowledged “[t]he ‘modeled PIM
path is the only thing Dr. Wells expressly mapped to the
‘interference generating signals’” and “Dr. Wells also testi-
fied that the PIM Model is generated in the GROOT
FPGA.” J.A. 21–22 (citing J.A. 15019 at 151:4–8). As such,
if the modeled PIM path is the claimed “interference gen-
erating signals,” then limitation 1[a] cannot be met be-
cause the accused radios’ receiver does not sample a
passband of received signals that includes interference
generating signals since those signals are not generated
until after sampling occurs. See J.A. 28303. The court,
however, held there was sufficient evidence for the jury to
find the RF ADC in the accused radios samples both the
“signals of interest” and “interference generating signals”
because it was persuaded by Finesse’s argument that the
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 7 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 7 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 8
modeled PIM path is not the “interference generating sig-
nals.” J.A. 7–16, 19–22.
On appeal, Finesse argues Dr. Wells identified the two
signals on the red path as the DL(TX) reference for “signals
of interest” and the modeled PIM path for “interference
generating signals” because he was relying on the Nokia
document’s legend, which says “Red – DL (TX) reference &
modeled PIM path,” when he was really referring to x1 and
x2. Oral Arg. at 31:01–32:20 (citing J.A. 26421);2 see also
Finesse Br. 30–31. Finesse claims Dr. Wells was “laboring
under the misimpression that x1 and x2 correspond to
DL[(TX) reference] and modeled PIM [path].” Oral Arg. at
35:10–19.
Dr. Wells’ testimony was confusing and unclear even
after he was made aware of his alleged misimpression. See
J.A. 15010–19. Dr. Wells continued to testify the modeled
PIM path is the “interference generating signals” and
never clarified he meant x1 and x2 when he was saying
DL(TX) reference and modeled PIM path. See J.A. 15011
at 143:6–22, 15012 at 144:5–11, 15014 at 146:1–3, 15017 at
149:7–10. At JMOL, the district court found “Dr. Wells tes-
tified that there are two signals entering the RF ADC, and
that those are signals of interest and the interference gen-
erating signals. Dr. Wells is clearly referring to x1 and x2.”
J.A. 10–11 (citing J.A. 15010–11 at 142:12–16, 143:10–13).
There is nothing clear about Dr. Wells’ testimony. Dr.
Wells never testified x1 and x2 correspond to the “signals
of interest” and “interference generating signals.” See
J.A. 15010–19. Instead, Finesse makes that inference by
piecing together parts of Dr. Wells’ testimony over ninety
pages apart in the record. Finesse Br. 30 (citing J.A. 15018
at 150:17–18 (“x1 and x2 are the two inputs here that are
represented by those two signals that are on the red path”),
2 Available at https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.
gov/default.aspx?fl=24-1039_07102025.mp3.
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 8 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 8 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 9
14925 at 57:5–7 (“this red path, it includes the signals of
interest, it includes the interference generating signals”)).
Even if Dr. Wells did testify x1 and x2 are the “signals
of interest” and “interference generating signals,” he re-
peatedly testified the DL(TX) reference and modeled PIM
path correspond to the claimed signals, and offered no clear
or detailed explanation for his contradictory testimony.
See J.A. 15010–19. This sort of confusing change of course
is not sufficient to support the jury verdict. When the party
with the burden of proof, such as Finesse, rests its case on
an expert’s self-contradictory testimony, we may conclude
the evidence is insufficient to satisfy that standard. Johns
Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (despite expert opining the accused device
contacts the vessel in three dimensions, “no reasonable
jury could have found that the [accused] device literally
met this limitation based on [expert’s] opinion, given his
contradictory testimony that the device only contacts the
vessel in two places”).3
We reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-
infringement for the asserted claims of the ’134 patent
3 Appellants also argue this x1/x2 theory, where one
of x1 and x2 is the “signals of interest” and the other is the
“interference generating signals,” is an unsupported theory
that Finesse disclaimed in its JMOL briefing. Appellants
Br. 40–44; Appellants Reply Br. 9–14 (citing J.A. 13838).
We do not agree. Finesse presented this theory in its
JMOL briefing and relied on Dr. Wells’ testimony. See
J.A. 13836 (citing, e.g., J.A. 14920 at 52:5, 14927 at 59:18–
20, 15011 at 143:12–13).
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 9 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 9 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 10
because the jury’s infringement verdict is not supported by
substantial evidence.4
B. ’775 Patent
The ’775 patent claims a method for reducing IMP in-
terference in a receiver by digitally multiplying three sig-
nals in seven multiplications to generate IMP cancellation
signals. ’775 patent at Abstract. Claim 1 is representative.
1. A method for performing interference cancellation
in a receiver, with a transmitter and the receiver be-
ing co-located with each other, the method compris-
ing:
[a] generating intermodulation product (IMP) can-
cellation signals (ICSs) to cancel passive IMPs in the
receiver, continuously and near real time, using cop-
ies of transmitter signals of the transmitter,
[b] wherein the passive IMPs are generated in pas-
sive transmitter components of the transmitter and
receiver components of the receiver after a high pow-
ered amplifier (HPA) and transmitter filter of the
transmitter,
[c] wherein the transmitter filter is coupled between
the HPA and an antenna used by the transmitter,
[d] wherein generating the ICSs is based on a power
series description of a non-linear process for gener-
ating the IMPs, and includes generating an n-th or-
der ICS by, given three signals S1, S2 and S3,
digitally multiplying and filtering S1×S1×S2
and S1×S2×S2 and S1×S2×S3 and S1×S1×S3
4 The parties also dispute the correct construction of
“receiver.” Appellants Br. 46 n.3; Finesse Br. 37–38. Be-
cause we reverse the denial of JMOL of noninfringement,
we do not reach this issue.
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 10 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 10 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 11
and S2×S2×S3 and S1×S3×S3 and S2×S3×S3,
where n is an integer.
Id. at 16:54–17:6 (emphases added).
At summary judgment, the district court construed
“three signals S1, S2 and S3” to be “separately identifia-
ble,” but not “unique.” J.A. 115. The court concluded the
intrinsic evidence does not limit “S1, S2 and S3” to unique
input signals and also credited inventor testimony, as ex-
trinsic evidence, that “S1, S2 and S3” represent signals
generally and can be the same signal or different signals.
J.A. 109–14. The key claim limitation at issue on appeal is
that seven third order multiplications of the three signals
must take place to meet the claim limitation.
At trial, Dr. Wells testified the accused radios infringe
the asserted claims of the ’775 patent by relying on a Nokia
technical document depicting how the accused radios oper-
ate. See J.A. 14965–70; J.A. 26485–86 (Nokia document).
Specifically, Dr. Wells testified the accused radios multiply
three separately identifiable signals and equated the three
distinct multiplications listed in the Nokia document to the
seven claimed multiplications. J.A. 14965–69 at 97:21–
101:11; J.A. 14970 at 102:5–15 (citing J.A. 28416–17). The
jury found all asserted claims of the ’775 patent infringed.
J.A. 169.
At JMOL, the district court rejected Appellants’ argu-
ment that “S1, S2 and S3” must be unique signals as
waived because Appellants failed to raise it at the Rule
50(a) stage.5 J.A. 38, 40. The court found using two sig-
nals, plus a copy of one of those signals, was sufficient to
meet its construction of three separately identifiable
5 Appellants do not appeal the district court’s hold-
ing that “S1, S2 and S3” need only be separately identifia-
ble, not unique. Appellants Br. 49 (citing J.A. 115).
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 11 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 11 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 12
signals. J.A. 38. The court also found only three distinct
multiplications are produced when two unique signals are
used, and that was sufficient to show infringement because
each of those three distinct multiplications corresponds to
two or three of the seven claimed multiplications. J.A. 38–
39.
Appellants argue no reasonable jury could have found
the accused radios generate cancellation signals by multi-
plying three signals because the accused radios only use
two signals: x1 and x2. Appellants Br. 49–55. Specifically,
Appellants argue Finesse surrendered claim scope over two
signals when it amended the claims during prosecution to
recite “three signals,” instead of “two or three signals,” to
overcome the Filipovic prior art reference that teaches gen-
erating cancellation signals using two inputs. J.A. 1021–
22 (original claims); J.A. 1006–10 (obviousness rejection);
J.A. 967–86 (response to rejection). Appellants also argue
no reasonable jury could have found the accused radios per-
form the seven claimed multiplications because Dr. Wells
only identified three multiplications. Appellants Br. 55–
58.
We do not agree that Finesse surrendered claim scope
over two signals. The examiner rejected a claim reciting
“digitally multiplying two or three signals” as obvious over
Filipovic and secondary references, J.A. 1006–07, but Fi-
nesse overcame that rejection in part by explaining “Fil-
ipovic is limited to mitigating active IMPs” and not passive
IMPs that the claimed method also addresses. J.A. 985; see
also J.A. 941 (Notice of Allowance). Although Finesse also
amended claims to add the limitation of digitally multiply-
ing “three signals S1, S2 and S3” in seven multiplications,
that does not rise to the level of “clear and unambiguous”
disavowal of claim scope over products, like the accused ra-
dios, with two unique input signals. Cont’l Circuits LLC v.
Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also
J.A. 110–11. At most, Finesse’s amendment requires three
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 12 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 12 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 13
separately identifiable signals and does not require any
specific number of unique input signals. See J.A. 968–69.
We agree, however, that no reasonable jury could have
found the accused radios perform the seven claimed multi-
plications. At trial, Dr. Wells relied on a Nokia document
to show the accused radios perform the claimed multiplica-
tions. J.A. 14966–68 at 98:3–100:12; J.A. 26485–86 (Nokia
document). But the document involves modulus and com-
plex conjugate operations and does not show the accused
radios perform the seven claimed multiplications.
J.A. 26485–86. Instead, it only lists three distinct multi-
plications—x1⋅|x1|⋅|x1|, x1⋅x1⋅x2', and x1⋅|x2|⋅|x2|—
and there is no evidence any multiplications are repeated
such that all seven claimed multiplications are performed,
as required by limitation 1[d]. J.A. 26486 (reproduced be-
low).
Moreover, Dr. Wells did not testify how those three dis-
tinct multiplications map onto the seven claimed multipli-
cations. J.A. 14966–70 at 98:3–102:19 (citing J.A. 28416–
17). Finesse attempts to clarify the mapping on appeal, but
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 13 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 13 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 14
that evidence was never presented to the jury. Finesse Br.
17–18 (citing J.A. 28417; J.A. 26485–86). And because the
document does not disclose multiplying x1 and x2, but their
complex conjugate and modulus, Finesse’s mapping is
flawed because it requires, for example, S3 to be mapped
onto the signal x2, its complex conjugate x2', and its mod-
ulus |x2|. Id. at 17.
At oral argument, Finesse explained the accused radios
perform the seven claimed multiplications because Nokia’s
documents show the accused radios perform not just seven
multiplications, but ten. Oral Arg. at 25:05–20 (citing
J.A. 28416); see also id. at 28:21–29:41; J.A. 26486 (refer-
encing p(n) = a0 through a9 ). Nowhere do Finesse or Dr.
Wells explain which subset of the ten multiplications listed
in the Nokia document corresponds to the seven claimed
multiplications. Finesse Br. 14–18; J.A. 15025–29 (Wells
Testimony). Nor do they provide a mapping from the ten
multiplications to the three distinct multiplications that
Finesse mapped onto the seven claimed multiplications.
Finesse Br. 17–18. Under these circumstances, no reason-
able jury could have found that the accused radios perform
the seven claimed multiplications.
We reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-
infringement for the asserted claims of the ’775 patent be-
cause the jury’s infringement verdict is not supported by
substantial evidence.6
II. Damages
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a new
trial under regional circuit law. Wi-LAN, Inc., 811 F.3d at
6 The parties also dispute the correct construction of
“co-located.” Appellants Br. 59–61; Finesse Br. 51–55. Be-
cause we reverse the denial of JMOL of noninfringement,
we do not reach this issue.
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 14 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 14 of 15 --

FINESSE WIRELESS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC 15
461. The Fifth Circuit reviews a denial of a new trial for
abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Fifth Circuit law).
After the jury verdict, Appellants moved for JMOL on
damages or, in the alternative, a new trial. J.A. 13732–56.
The district court denied both motions. J.A. 42–57 (deny-
ing JMOL on damages); J.A. 58–65 (denying new trial on
damages). Because we reverse the denial of JMOL of non-
infringement for all asserted claims of the ’134 and ’775 pa-
tents, we vacate the damages award.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the denial of
JMOL of noninfringement and vacate the damages award.
REVERSED AND VACATED
COSTS
Costs to Defendants-Appellants.
Case: 24-1039 Document: 68 Page: 15 Filed: 09/24/2025

-- 15 of 15 --