Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Appeal No. 2024-1039 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2025)

In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit struck down a $166.3 million damages award against AT&T and Nokia of America Corp., finding that the jury’s infringement verdict was not supported by substantial evidence.  Diving into the technical specifics of Nokia’s accused radio products, the Court found Finesse’s expert’s testimony was “self-contradictory” and otherwise never clearly mapped the asserted claims to the products’ interference-cancelling functionality.  As a result, the Court reversed the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law, and vacated the jury award.

Finesse sued AT&T and Nokia for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,134 and 9,548,755, which are directed to methods for mitigating intermodulation product (IMP) interference in radios.  IMPs may occur when radio signals encounter obstacles, such as metal fences or rusted connectors, that cause the signals to combine with signals on different frequencies.  As relevant to the appeal, the ’134 patent’s mitigation methods required, inter alia, “sampling” of “a passband of received signals to create a bit stream, wherein the received signals include signals of interest and interference generating signals.”  Finesse’s expert, a Dr. Wells, testified clearly and repeatedly at trial that the “signal of interest” was a signal referred to as a “downlink transmit (DL(TX)) reference” in a Nokia product schematic; that the “interference generating signal” was a “PIM path” (for “passive intermodulation product”); and that both signals were “sampled” by a specific radio frequency analog-to-digital converter (RF ADC).  On cross-examination, however, defendants’ counsel pointed out that the PIM path signal was not generated until a point downstream of the RF ADC, such that the RF ADC could not possibly “sample” the PIM path signal with the DL(TX) reference.  In response, Dr. Wells pointed out that the DL(TX) reference contained two components “x1” and “x2,” although he did not testify that those corresponded to the claims’ “signal of interest” and “interference generating signal” limitations, and later repeated his testimony that it was the DL(TX) reference and the PIM path signal.

On appeal, Finesse argued that Dr. Wells was “clearly referring to x1 and x2” as satisfying the claim limitations, an argument the district court accepted in denying defendants’ JMOL for non-infringement.  The Federal Circuit disagreed, however, finding “[t]here is nothing clear about Dr. Wells testimony,” which “was confusing and unclear even after he was made aware of his alleged misimpression,” and that he “offered no clear or detailed explanation for his contradictory testimony.”  As for the ’755 patent, the patent’s claimed mitigation algorithm required seven multiplications of certain signals, which the Court similarly found that Dr. Wells never actually identified in Nokia’s product documentation.  Because the jury’s infringement verdict was not supported by substantial evidence for either patent, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-infringement and vacated the damages award.

The opinion can be found here.

By Jason Wrubleski

ALSO THIS WEEK

Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2434 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2025)

In an appeal from IPR proceedings concerning a pharmaceutical, the Court affirmed in part but vacated and remanded for further proceedings after Bayer appealed multiple issues.  One of the claim terms recited that the pharmaceutical had be “clinically proven effective.”  The Board found this claim term had no patentable weight.  The Federal Circuit agreed but based on different reasoning.  The Court held the term would be “a functionally unrelatable limitation.”   This doctrine prevents “the indefinite patenting of known products [and methods] by the simple inclusion of novel, yet functionally unrelated limitations,” like “an instructional limitation or a limitation referencing a subsequent accolade.”  Here the claim simply meant that “the method subsequently performed well in a clinical trial.”  The Court also construed the term “first product comprising rivaroxaban and aspirin” to encompass separate administration of drugs.  The Court otherwise affirmed the Board’s motivation to combine analysis and its treatment of evidence of unexpected results.

The opinion can be found here.

By Nika Aldrich

This article summarizes aspects of the law and does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice with regard to your situation, you should contact an attorney.