Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Sys., Inc.
Decision Date | 14 July 2020 |
Docket Number | 2019-2041 |
Citation | 965 F.3d 1299 |
Parties | PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NETSCOUT SYSTEMS, INC., NetScout Systems Texas, LLC, fka Tektronix Texas, LLC dba Tektronix Communications, Defendants-Appellants |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Paul Skiermont, Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by Sadaf R. Abdullah, Steven Wayne Hartsell, Steven Udick ; Mieke K. Malmberg, Los Angeles, CA.
Eric Kraeutler, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for defendants-appellants. Also represented by Julie S. Goldemberg ; Jason D. Frank, Boston, MA; Karon Nicole Fowler, Chicago, IL; William R. Peterson, Houston, TX; Ahren Christian Hsu-Hoffman, Michael John Lyons, Thomas Y. Nolan, Palo Alto, CA; Michael Francis Carr, Milpitas, CA.
Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.
NetScout Systems, Inc. and NetScout Systems Texas, LLC ("NetScout") appeal from the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas after a jury verdict and bench trial that (1) NetScout willfully infringed claims 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent 6,665,725 ("the ’725 patent"), claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent 6,839,751 ("the ’751 patent"), and claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent 6,954,789 ("the ’789 patent") ; (2) no asserted claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a), 102(f) ; (3) Packet Intelligence LLC ("Packet Intelligence") is entitled to $3.5 million in damages for pre-suit infringement; (4) Packet Intelligence is entitled to post-suit damages of $2.25 million; (5) Packet Intelligence is entitled to $2.8 million in enhanced damages; and (6) Packet Intelligence is entitled to an ongoing royalty for future infringement of 1.55%. Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc. , No. 2:16-cv-230-JRG, 2018 WL 4286193, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2018).
Because the district court erred in denying NetScout's motion for judgment as a matter of law on pre-suit damages, we reverse the district court's pre-suit damages award and vacate the court's enhancement of that award. We affirm the district court's judgment in all other respects.
Packet Intelligence owns the ’725, ’751, and ’789 patents, which teach a method for monitoring packets exchanged over a computer network. A stream of packets between two computers is called a connection flow. ’789 patent col. 2 ll. 43–45. Monitoring connection flows cannot account for disjointed sequences of the same flow in a network. Id. col. 3 ll. 56–59. The specifications explain that it is more useful to identify and classify "conversational flows," defined as "the sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity." Id. col. 2 ll. 45–47. Conversational flows provide application-specific views of network traffic and can be used to generate helpful analytics to understand network load and usage. See ’751 patent col. 3 l. 2–col. 4 l. 11.
The claims of the ’725, ’751, and ’789 patents asserted in the district court describe apparatuses and methods for network monitoring. The ’789 patent recites apparatus claims, and claims 19 and 20 were asserted. Claim 19 of ’789 patent is drawn to a "packet monitor":
’789 patent col. 36 l. 31–col. 37 l. 2. Claim 20 of the ’789 patent depends from claim 19 and further requires that "each packet passing through the connection point is accepted by the packet buffer memory and examined by the monitor in real time." Id. col. 37 ll. 3–6.
In contrast to the apparatus claims of the ’789 patent, the ’725 and ’751 patents recite method claims. The ’725 patent claims recite a method for performing protocol-specific operations on a packet through a connection point on a network, comprising receiving a packet and executing protocol specific operations on it, including parsing and ex-traction to determine whether the packet belongs to a conversational flow. And the ’751 patent claims recite methods of analyzing a flow of packets with similar steps. Although the asserted claims include varied language, the parties treat claim 19 of the ’789 patent as representative of all of the asserted claims for infringement and invalidity. Thus, we focus on claim 19 in our analysis.
Packet Intelligence asserted claims 19 and 20 of the ’789 patent, claims 10 and 17 of the ’725 patent, and claims 1 and 5 of the ’751 patent against NetScout's "G10" and "GeoBlade" products in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was tried to a jury on the issues of infringement, damages, willfulness, and invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The jury found all claims willfully infringed, rejected NetScout's invalidity defenses, and awarded pre-suit and post-suit damages. Following the jury verdict, the district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 rejecting NetScout's § 101 invalidity defense. The court also enhanced damages in the amount of $2.8 million and, in accordance with the jury's verdict, awarded an ongoing royalty for post-verdict infringement.
NetScout appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
In reviewing issues tried to a jury, we review the district court's denial of post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial under the law of the regional circuit—here, the Fifth Circuit. See Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp. , 626 F.3d 1197, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. , 563 F.3d 1358, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ). Under Fifth Circuit law, we review de novo the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying the same legal standard as the district court. Baisden v. I'm Ready Prods., Inc ., 693 F.3d 491, 499 (5th Cir. 2012). Judgment as a matter of law should be granted if "a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
We are "especially deferential" to a jury's verdict, reversing only for lack of substantial evidence. Baisden , 693 F.3d at 498–99. "Substantial evidence" is "evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions." Threlkeld v. Total Petroleum, Inc. , 211 F.3d 887, 891 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Gaia Techs., Inc. v. Recycled Prods. Corp. , 175 F.3d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1999) ). We "draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and cannot substitute other inferences that we might regard as more reasonable." E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co. , 731 F.3d 444, 452 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Westlake Petrochems., L.L.C. v. United Polychem, Inc. , 688 F.3d 232, 239 (5th Cir. 2012) ). "Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 150–51, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ).
On appeal from a bench trial, we review a district court's conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc. , 749 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc. , 229 F.3d 1120, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ). "A factual finding is clearly erroneous when, despite some supporting evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court was in error." Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc. , 745 F.3d 1180, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc. , 464 F.3d 1286, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ). "The burden of overcoming the district court's factual findings is, as it should be, a heavy one." Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 789 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1986). "Where there are two permissible views of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ocado Innovation, Ltd. v. AutoStore AS
...a patent's claimed advance represents a concrete "technological solution to a technological problem." Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., 965 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ; see also SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (same). "[C]laims ‘......
-
Tecsec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.
...Uniloc , 957 F.3d at 1306, 1308–09 ; see Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1135–36 ; see also , e.g. , Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. , 965 F.3d 1299, 1309–10 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ; Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Tech. Holdings Ltd. , 955 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ; Koninklijke......
-
United States v. Litzky
... ... See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 58997, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 ... ...
-
BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research Organisation
...of what I meant by foundation ....J.A. 10581–82 (formatting altered); see also J.A. 10570–78; cf. Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc. , 965 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed Cir. 2020). The court concluded that "there are problems with attempting to base a reasonable royalty rate based on ......
-
The 'Essence' of an Invention Is as Important as the Claims
...of the parties to correct a claim dependency error. Presuit Damages/Jury Instructions Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems Inc. , 965 F.3d 1299, 2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 10776 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s presuit damages award and enhancement......
-
Compulsory Patent Licensing in the Time of COVID-19: Views from the United States, Canada, and Europe
...of the parties to correct a claim dependency error. Presuit Damages/Jury Instructions Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems Inc. , 965 F.3d 1299, 2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 10776 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s presuit damages award and enhancement......
-
Decisions in Brief
...of the parties to correct a claim dependency error. Presuit Damages/Jury Instructions Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems Inc. , 965 F.3d 1299, 2020 U.S.P.Q.2d 10776 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s presuit damages award and enhancement......
-
Chapter §20.10 Patent Marking
...products which the alleged infringer believes practice the patent.") (emphasis added).[1236] Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1369. [1237] 965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Lourie, J.). [1238] Two other PI patents were asserted, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725 and 6,839,751, but both were method patents no......