The jury found that while Inline's patent claims were originally deemed infringed, they ultimately ruled that all asserted claims were invalid, which complicates Inline's appeal.
Inline's appeal focused on the perceived errors in jury instructions regarding obviousness, claiming these missteps warrant a retrial to reassess validity and infringement.
Lacerta's cross-appeal challenges the district court's decisions regarding attorney fees and the treatment of Inline's voluntarily withdrawn claims, questioning procedural fairness.
The appellate court affirmed the district court's rulings apart from the instruction errors, indicating a need for reassessment on the matter of invalidity.
Collection
[
|
...
]