Harris Corporation v. Ericsson, Inc.

Error: Bad annotation destination
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

03-1625, -1626

HARRIS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

ERICSSON INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Henry C. Bunsow, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of San Francisco,
California, argued for plaintiff-cross appellant. With him on the brief were Robert C.
Laurenson, of Irvine, California, and Denise M. De Mory, of San Francisco, California.
Of counsel on the brief were Raphael V. Lupo, Brian E. Ferguson and Natalia V.
Blinkova, McDermott, Will & Emery, of Washington, DC; and Brett C. Govett, Fulbright &
Jaworski L.L.P., of Dallas, Texas.

Donald R. Dunner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of
Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. On the brief were Douglas A.
Cawley, Mike McKool, Jr. and Theodore Stevenson, III, McKool Smith, P.C., of Dallas,
Texas, and Kevin Burgess, of Austin, Texas. Of counsel on the brief were Don O.
Burley, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC,
and Scott A. Herbst and Erik R. Puknys, of Palo Alto, California; and Monte M. Bond,
Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, L.L.P., of Alexandria, Virginia.

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn
 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

03-1625, -1626

HARRIS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

ERICSSON INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

DECIDED: August 5, 2005
__________________________

Before CLEVENGER, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PROST. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit
Judge GAJARSA.

PROST, Circuit Judge.

Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) appeals from a judgment of infringement and award of

damages by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Case No.

3:98-CV-2903. Ericsson specifically appeals the district court’s construction of claims 1,

2, 33, and 45 of U.S. Patent No. 4,365,338 (“the ’338 patent”), the court’s denial of its

motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of noninfringement of those claims, the

jury’s verdict of infringement, the amount of the remitted damages award, and the jury’s

verdict that Ericsson’s infringement was willful. Harris Corporation (“Harris”) cross-

appeals the award of enhanced damages for willful infringement, characterizing it as too

small. We vacate the district court’s denial of JMOL of noninfringement of claims 1, 2,
and 33 and remand for reconsideration of that issue in light of our interpretation of the

claims. We reverse the denial of Ericsson’s motion for JMOL of noninfringement of

claim 45 and instruct the district court to enter judgment of noninfringement of that

claim.

I. BACKGROUND

Ericsson manufactures and sells cellular communication equipment. Its products

include both cellular phones and base stations, which receive, process, and transmit

cellular signals. Both of these types of products are accused of infringing the ’338

patent in the present case.

This patent concerns the way wireless signals are processed. Modern cellular

devices transmit information in the form of bits of data grouped into packets, or

“symbols.” The symbols are transmitted by means of electromagnetic waves. Because

the waves become distorted when they travel through the air and reflect off objects, the

values of the symbols do not necessarily correspond to any of the allowed “discrete”

values when they arrive at their destination. This effect is called “intersymbol

interference.” The receiving device typically uses a computer program to restore the

symbols to their original discrete values.

The ’338 patent specification describes such a program. In the disclosed

process, the set of unknown symbols that represent the information to be transmitted is

preceded and followed by sets of known symbols. Intersymbol interference affects all of

the symbols, but since some of the symbols are known, the program can compare the

received symbols to the known ones and thereby calculate the effect of the transmission

medium. The program then applies what it learned about the effect of the medium to

03-1625, -1626 2
the distorted unknown symbols to derive “estimates” of their original values. The

estimates are not discrete values, because the program’s compensation for the effect of

the medium is not perfect. Therefore, the program must convert the estimates into

discrete values, which are called “decisions.” The ’338 patent thus discloses a two-step

symbol decoding algorithm, the first step being the calculation of nondiscrete estimates

and the second being the selection of discrete decisions based on the estimates.

Harris, a maker of defense communication equipment, owns the ’338 patent. In

the mid-1990s, Harris notified at least two cellular companies, Ericsson and Nokia, that

it believed they were infringing certain Harris patents. At that time, Harris had not yet

accused Ericsson of infringing the ’338 patent specifically, but Nokia advised Ericsson

to review that patent in late 1996. Ericsson proceeded to obtain an opinion from a

patent attorney, John Lastova, that stated that Ericsson did not infringe the ’338 patent.

On August 17, 1998, Harris sued Ericsson for infringement of the ’338 patent (among

others) in the Northern District of Texas.

A special master construed terms in claims 1, 2, 33, and 45 of the ’338 patent,

and the district court adopted the special master’s construction. Claim 1, from which

claims 2 and 33 depend, reads as follows, with passages relevant to this appeal

underlined:

A communication system for communicating information
signals from a transmitting station to a receiving station over
a dispersive medium, comprising:

transmitting apparatus, disposed at said transmitting station,
for transmitting information signals interleaved with known
signals; and

receiving apparatus, disposed at said receiving station, for
receiving the transmitted signals subject to the influence of
said dispersive medium and providing estimates of the

03-1625, -1626 3
 originally transmitted information signals, said receiving
apparatus comprising:

means for generating a replica of said known signals,

time domain processing means for simulating the time
domain effect of said dispersive medium on signals
transmitted through it by deducing prescribed characteristics
of said medium, and for producing estimates of said
information signals in accordance with a preselected
relationship between said prescribed characteristics of said
simulated effect and said known and received signals, and

output conversion means, coupled to said processing
means, for converting said estimates of said information
signals into output signals representative of the original
information signals at said transmitting station.

’338 patent, col. 17, ll. 42-66 (emphasis added).

The parties disputed whether these claims were limited to a two-step process for

dealing with intersymbol interference. In Ericsson’s view, these claims only covered

systems that performed a first step of calculating nondiscrete estimates, followed by a

second step of selecting discrete decisions. Harris contended that these claims

covered both one-step and two-step processes, one-step processes being those that

directly obtain discrete values without an intermediate step of calculating nondiscrete

estimates. This dispute was relevant to infringement, because Ericsson’s accused

products employ a process that does not have a step of calculating nondiscrete

estimates. This process is known as Maximum Likelihood Sequence Estimation using

the Viterbi Algorithm, or “Viterbi MLSE.” In Viterbi MLSE, the receiving device

compares distorted sequences of received symbols to hypothetical sequences of

transmitted symbols to find the sequence of symbols that was most likely transmitted.

The hypothetical sequences are distorted in accordance with a model of the

transmission medium.

03-1625, -1626 4
 The court construed claims 1, 2, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. A § 112 ¶ 6

limitation covers an accused product that has a function identical to the one recited in

the claim and a structure that is identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure

disclosed in the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2000). The court held that the

corresponding structure for the “time domain processing means” limitation was the

“symbol processor 37.” Accordingly, the court rejected Ericsson’s contention that the

claims were limited to a two-step process and instructed the jury that these claims

covered “a one or two-step process.” Under this claim construction and jury instruction,

an infringing system need not perform two separate steps of calculating nondiscrete

estimates and deriving discrete decisions; a system that compensated for intersymbol

interference to produce discrete results in one step could still infringe these claims

literally.

Claim 45, a method claim, was also asserted:

A communication scheme for communicating information
symbols from a transmitting station to a receiving station,
said information symbols being originally unknown at said
receiving station, over a dispersive medium, comprising the
steps of:

transmitting, from said transmitting station, said information
symbols interleaved with additional symbols, said additional
symbols being known at the receiving station;

receiving, at said receiving station, the interleaved known
and unknown symbols transmitted from said transmitting
station over said dispersive medium;

generating, at said receiving station, a replica of said known
symbols; and

processing the symbol values received at said receiving
station by simulating the effect of said dispersive medium by
generating an equalization function defining the dispersive
characteristics of said medium and producing, as estimates

03-1625, -1626 5
 of said information symbols, those information symbols
capable of being transmitted which are closest to information
symbols the values of which minimize the sum of the
squares of the magnitudes of successive pluralities of noise
signals corresponding to received information and known
symbols, calculated in accordance with the prescribed
relationship between said simulated effect and said known
and received symbol values.

’338 patent, col. 25, ll. 3-31 (emphasis added). The court held that claim 45, like the

other claims at issue, was not limited to a two-step process but also covered one-step

processes.

The case proceeded to a jury trial on these four claims. The jury found that

Ericsson infringed claims 1 and 33 literally and claims 2 and 45 under the doctrine of

equivalents. The jury also found that reasonable royalty damages amounted to

$61,250,000. This amount was premised on a 1.75% royalty rate on Ericsson’s

allegedly infringing sales from the date it received notice of the ’338 patent, August 17,

1998, to the date the patent expired, June 27, 2000.1 Harris’s damages expert, Walter

Bratic, identified 1.75% as the royalty rate to which the parties would have agreed in a

hypothetical license negotiation on January 1, 1992, the date Ericsson began its

allegedly infringing activity. Bratic also testified that this negotiation would have yielded

a five-year license agreement that would have been renewed on January 1, 1997 at a

royalty rate of 0.5%. The jury also found that Ericsson’s infringement was willful.

In response to Ericsson’s motion for JMOL, the district court upheld the verdict in

all respects except the amount of damages. The court held that the evidence could not

support the jury’s reasonable royalty damages award. The court interpreted Wang

1
The notice date of August 17, 1998, is the date on which this lawsuit was
filed. Harris does not claim that the Nokia letter or any other act prior to the filing of this
lawsuit put Ericsson on notice of infringement of the ’338 patent.

03-1625, -1626 6
Laboratories, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993), as requiring the

hypothetical negotiation to have occurred on the date of first infringement, but not

precluding the modification of the royalty rate over time by subsequent events. The

court gave Harris the choice between a remitted award of $43,270,150 and a new trial.

To arrive at this royalty, which the court characterized as the highest amount the jury

could have awarded under applicable law, the court averaged the 1.75% and 0.5%

rates, weighting each by the number of days of infringement that passed in the period in

which each rate applied. Accordingly, the court weighted the 1.75% rate by 1,826 days

(January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1996) and the 0.5% rate by 1,274 days (January 1,

1997 to June 27, 2000), resulting in a blended rate of 1.24%. The court then applied

this rate to Ericsson’s $3.5 billion in sales in the statutory damages period, exactly as

the jury had done with the higher royalty rate, to arrive at the final figure. Harris

accepted the remitted award, and the court entered judgment on the jury verdict and

awarded damages, including an additional $1,000,000 in enhanced damages and

$1,034,930 in attorneys’ fees based on the jury’s willfulness finding.

II. DISCUSSION

Ericsson filed a timely appeal to this court in which it challenges the district

court’s claim construction, requests reversal of the denial of Ericsson’s motion for JMOL

of noninfringement, seeks a remittitur of the reasonable royalty damages to

$17,500,000 if there is infringement, and asks for reversal of the jury’s finding of willful

infringement. Harris filed a timely cross-appeal on the magnitude of the enhanced

damages award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

03-1625, -1626 7
 A. Standards of Review

The district court’s claim construction is reviewed de novo. Laitram Corp. v. NEC

Corp., 62 F.3d 1388, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1995). As explained below, however, there is a

dispute over whether Ericsson is barred by estoppel or waiver from asserting the claim

interpretation it puts forth in this appeal.

We review the court’s denial of a motion for JMOL de novo. A court may grant

JMOL on an issue when “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable

jury to find for [the nonmoving] party on that issue . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). The

denial of JMOL is not a patent-law-specific issue, so regional circuit law applies. The

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit describes appellate review of a

JMOL denial as a determination whether “the facts and inferences point so strongly and

overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court concludes that reasonable jurors

could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” Bellows v. Amoco Oil Co., 118 F.3d 268, 273 (5th

Cir. 1997).

In reviewing the district court’s award of reasonable royalty damages, we must

determine if the court abused its discretion in its methodology for calculating the royalty.

SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Lab. Corp., 926 F.2d 1161, 1164 (Fed. Cir.

1991). An abuse of discretion occurs when a court bases its determination “on clearly

erroneous factual findings, legal error, or a manifest error of judgment.” Datascope

Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820, 823-24 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). The

district court’s award of enhanced damages for willful infringement is also reviewed

under an abuse of discretion standard, and the jury’s underlying factual finding of

03-1625, -1626 8
willfulness is reviewed for substantial evidence. Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc.,

152 F.3d 1342, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

B. Claim Construction

We address the system claims (1, 2, and 33) and the method claim (45)

separately, because they present different claim construction and infringement issues.

1. The Parties’ Arguments

As the district court correctly held, the “time domain processing means” limitation

of claims 1, 2, and 33 falls under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. It includes the word “means,”

thereby invoking a presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 applies, and it does not recite sufficient

structure for performing the claimed function to rebut the presumption. The parties

agree on these points. Their dispute is over the corresponding structure of the “time

domain processing means.” The district court held that the corresponding structure was

a “symbol processor.” Because the district court was unaware of our decision in WMS

Gaming, Inc. v. International Game Technology, 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999), it did

not limit the scope of claims 1, 2, and 33 to a particular algorithm. Instead, the court

instructed the jury in general that these claims covered “a one or two-step process.”

Ericsson challenges this holding on appeal, asserting that this court’s precedent

requires the corresponding structure of a computer-implemented function to be more

than just hardware—that the disclosed algorithm constitutes part of the corresponding

structure as well. Harris appears not to disagree with this general statement of the law,

but it claims that Ericsson’s current argument is foreclosed by waiver or estoppel and

that the district court’s jury instruction that the claims could cover a one-step process

does not violate the algorithm rule.

03-1625, -1626 9
 Ericsson takes the position that this case falls squarely under the rule of WMS

Gaming, which established that the corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a

computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification. 184 F.3d

1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In Ericsson’s view, the algorithm in the ’338 patent includes two

steps: calculating nondiscrete estimates, and then converting those estimates to

discrete decisions. Under this construction, Ericsson maintains that the infringement

verdict is unsustainable. Ericsson seeks an order directing the district court to enter

judgment of noninfringement.

Harris’s primary response is that Ericsson waived the WMS Gaming argument by

failing to advance it at trial and arguing instead that the two-step limitation was part of

the function of the claimed “time domain processing means.” If that were not enough to

effect a waiver, Harris says, Ericsson would nonetheless have waived the construction it

currently advocates by failing to object to the district court’s jury instructions or to proffer

curative instructions. Harris contends that waiver precludes this court from even

entertaining Ericsson’s claim construction appeal, or at least that we must apply the

Fifth Circuit’s deferential “plain error” standard of review to the district court’s

construction. See Taita Chem. Co. v. Westlake Styrene, 351 F.3d 663, 668 (5th Cir.

2003) (“If error is not preserved, we review for plain error. To meet this standard, a party

must show: (1) that an error occurred; (2) that the error was plain, which means clear or

obvious; (3) the plain error must affect substantial rights; and (4) not correcting the error

would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

(Internal quotation marks omitted.)). If waiver does not apply, Harris’s alternative

position is that WMS Gaming only establishes that the corresponding structure of a

03-1625, -1626 10
computer-implemented function must include those features of the algorithm that are

necessary to the performance of the recited function—not that every detail of the

specification’s algorithm is a limitation on the claimed invention, which is how Harris

characterizes Ericsson’s asserted claim construction. Harris asserts that the two-step

process cannot be divorced from equation (7) in the specification, and it stresses that

Ericsson has conceded that equation (7) is not a limitation on the scope of the asserted

claims. Just like equation (7), Harris argues, the two-step process is merely an optional

feature of the invention, an example of how to implement the claimed function. On this

basis, Harris contends that the court’s jury instruction does not violate the WMS Gaming

rule because the disclosed algorithm is optionally one-step or two-step. Finally, Harris

refuses to concede noninfringement even under Ericsson’s proposed construction; in

the event that we reverse the district court’s claim construction, Harris believes it is still

entitled to judgment of infringement because substantial evidence supports the

proposition that features of Ericsson’s accused system are structurally equivalent under

§ 112 ¶ 6 to a two-step algorithm.

The only reasoned argument Harris presents for an outright affirmance of the

district court’s “symbol processor” claim construction (as opposed to a modification of

the district court’s construction to require an algorithm, but one that could have either

one or two steps) is that waiver or estoppel bars Ericsson from raising its current

arguments. The district court held that the corresponding structure was simply a

microprocessor, specifically the symbol processor shown as reference numeral 37 in

Figure 4 of the ’338 patent. Harris purports to argue that the district court’s construction

is correct, but Harris never justifies considering the corresponding structure to be the

03-1625, -1626 11
processor alone and not also the algorithm according to which it is programmed. In

fact, Harris implicitly acknowledges that the law requires something more than just a

microprocessor as corresponding structure; the gist of Harris’s argument is that the

corresponding structure does include an algorithm, but not the one Ericsson identifies.

According to Harris, the algorithm advocated by Ericsson either does not correspond to

claims 1, 2, and 33 or constitutes an improperly narrow understanding of the disclosed

algorithm. In short, both Ericsson and Harris effectively acknowledge on appeal that the

corresponding structure of a microprocessor-implemented function is not only the

microprocessor, but also the algorithm implemented by the microprocessor. On the

merits of the claim construction issue, the parties dispute what the algorithm is, not

whether it is required.

2. Waiver and Estoppel—Choice of Law

Because waiver and estoppel are the only available grounds on which to affirm

the district court’s construction, we first consider whether Ericsson waived, or is

estopped from asserting, any of its claim construction arguments based on its actions

before the district court. Waiver is a procedural issue, but if one views the issue more

narrowly as “waiver of a claim construction argument,” rather than the more general

“waiver of an appellate argument,” it seems indisputably unique to patent law. In our

estimation, the narrower of these two views is more appropriate. This court does not

appear to have addressed explicitly the choice of law issue presented here, but

numerous Federal Circuit cases have discussed waiver of claim construction

arguments, citing Federal Circuit law without so much as mentioning regional circuit law.

See, e.g., Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Interactive

03-1625, -1626 12
Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d at 1346, 1344-47 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Key

Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714-16 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Sage Prods.,

Inc. v. Devon Indus., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, we have held that

“waiver of claims and defenses in a settlement agreement,” where “the underlying

substance of these arguments . . . is intimately related with the substance of

enforcement of a patent right[,]” is a matter of Federal Circuit law. Flex-Foot, Inc. v.

CRP, Inc., 238 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Because the ability to make claim

construction arguments on appeal is intimately bound up with patent enforcement, we

hold that Federal Circuit law controls waiver in the context of claim construction

arguments.

3. Waiver—Analysis

The initial step in our waiver analysis is to compare Ericsson’s appellate and trial

court arguments. Harris alleges that Ericsson never argued in front of the district court

for the two-step claim construction it advances now. Ericsson argues that its positions

before the district court were basically the same as the ones it maintains now. Neither

side is entirely correct. Ericsson’s claim construction brief to the district court shows

that it did indeed advance a “two-step” claim construction, but on a different theory than

that on which its appeal is premised. Ericsson contended in its claim construction brief

that selecting discrete decisions is a required step separate from the function of the

“time domain processing means,” which is to produce nondiscrete “estimates of the

originally transmitted information signals.” Ericsson also proposed an alternative

construction in which the function of the “time domain processing means” is to

implement a two-step algorithm. This argument evidences a requirement of two steps,

03-1625, -1626 13
but Ericsson never characterized both steps as part of the corresponding structure of

that limitation. Thus, Ericsson’s claim construction theory on appeal is at least slightly

different—in form if not in ultimate conclusion—from its position below.

The next question is whether the change in Ericsson’s argument is so

insubstantial that it represents “the same concept” that Ericsson raised before the

district court, in which case there would be no waiver. See Gaus, 363 F.3d at 1288. An

appellate court retains case-by-case discretion over whether to apply waiver. Singleton

v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976); Interactive Gift, 256 F.3d at 1344. Gaus provides a

useful guide to the exercise of that discretion. In Gaus, the appellant had argued prior

to trial that a “pair of probe networks” in a hair dryer’s automatic shut-off mechanism for

preventing electrical shocks in bathtubs required

two corresponding things designed for use together the
functioning of which are independent of the other voltage
carrying portions of the hairdryer to be protected and which
are configured such that the trigger switch current will
respond before the penetrating water reaches any other
voltage carrying portions of the hairdryer, such as the
heating coil.

Id. On appeal, the appellant changed its phrasing to “a pair of probe networks that is

separate and operates independently from any voltage carrying part of the apparatus

and which will effect a current shut off (upon entry of water) before water touches any

voltage carrying part of the apparatus.” Id. The court in that case articulated a single

concept that these two phrasings expressed: “that the probe network must contain two

conductive elements that are separate or independent from the voltage-carrying

portions of the hairdryer.” Id. Such a characterization applies to the present case, too:

Ericsson’s claim construction now, as it was before the district court, is that the asserted

claims require a two-step algorithm of producing nondiscrete estimates and deriving

03-1625, -1626 14
discrete decisions therefrom. Thus, we conclude that Ericsson is arguing “the same

concept” as it argued before the district court.

It strains credulity for Harris to argue that Ericsson is raising a wholly new claim

construction on appeal. Ericsson could not have stated any more clearly before the

district court that it was advocating a two-step claim construction; the only difference

between its district court and appellate arguments hinges on whether the two steps are

found in the claimed functions or the corresponding structure. The slight change in

claim scope that results from Ericsson’s alteration of the rationale for its claim

construction does not affect our view in this case. Shifting from a “function” theory to a

“structure” theory modifies the claim scope in one minor way: equivalent structure

infringes literally (as long as the equivalent structure was a technology that was

available prior to the issue date of the patent), whereas an equivalent function would

infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. See Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite

Pictures, Inc., 274 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l, Inc., 174

F.3d 1308, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1999). This change is not significant enough to bring the

case outside the “same concept” rule of Gaus. We have been presented with no

argument that this technical distinction in the type of infringement makes any practical

difference in this case. Because Ericsson is advocating the same concept as it did in

the district court, we hold that Ericsson’s district court claim construction arguments do

03-1625, -1626 15
not preclude its WMS Gaming argument on appeal.2

Harris argues that another basis for applying waiver is Ericsson’s failure to object

to the jury instructions on infringement. We disagree, because Ericsson has appealed

the district court’s denial of JMOL. JMOL can be granted either before or after the jury

has rendered a verdict, and it does not depend on how the jury was instructed. The test

is whether there is a legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find for the

nonmoving party “under the controlling law[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). The

longstanding test for appeals of the denial of JMOL under Fifth Circuit law is whether

the evidence presented can suffice, as a matter of law, to support a jury verdict, and

“review of [a] JMOL-denial is not restricted to the law as stated in the jury instructions.”

Arsement v. Spinnaker Exploration Co., 400 F.3d 238, 248 (5th Cir. 2005); cf. Koito Mfg.

Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (in an appeal of a denial of

a motion for a new trial, precluding an appellant’s claim construction argument that was

not raised in objections to jury instructions). Here, the “controlling law” is the legal

interpretation of the asserted claims. Thus, irrespective of any jury instructions, the

2
Separately, we are not persuaded by Harris’s assertion that Ericsson is
challenging the construction that Ericsson itself convinced the district court to adopt. To
make this contention, Harris must narrowly parse the issue down to the construction of
the term “time domain processing means,” rather than looking at Ericsson’s complete
two-step claim construction argument. Ericsson argued that the claim required a two-
step process; it even argued that the “time domain processing means” limitation was the
basis for this requirement. “Judicial estoppel is designed to prevent the perversion of
the judicial process and, as such, is intended to protect the courts rather than the
litigants.” Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We do not
detect any “perversion of the judicial process” in Ericsson’s challenge to a claim
construction that is favorable in one detail but unfavorable on the whole.

03-1625, -1626 16
JMOL decision is based on whether a reasonable jury could find that Ericsson infringed

the properly construed claims based on the evidence presented.3

4. Construction of Claims 1, 2, and 33

Turning to the substantive claim construction issue, WMS Gaming restricts

computer-implemented means-plus-function terms to the algorithm disclosed in the

specification. Construing the term “means for assigning a plurality of numbers

representing said angular positions of said reel, said plurality of numbers exceeding

said predetermined number of radial positions such that some rotational positions are

represented by a plurality of numbers[,]” the court in WMS Gaming rejected the

3
Needless to say, we disagree with the view of the dissent that we have
departed from our established law as to when waiver is enforced. As explained above,
we think our ruling is consistent with previous practice.
Contrary to the dissent’s unfounded fears, the court does not permit “a distinct
paradigm shift” in Ericsson’s argument, “overlook[] the fact that the jury returned a
verdict that Ericsson literally infringed claim 1,” waste resources, or “discourage trial
courts from heavily investing in claim constructions below.” Nor does it (or could it)
establish an “Oops I Forgot Rule” that abolishes the doctrine of waiver from Federal
Circuit law. As explained above, the court merely applies the “same concept” doctrine
illuminated in Gaus to the facts presented by this case.
Indeed, the dissent never establishes that Ericsson’s modified articulation of its
claim construction would yield anything more than an infinitesimal tweak in scope,
devoid of any practical consequence. Speculation that Harris would have put on
different infringement evidence under essentially the same claim construction is
unfounded. Notably, also, argument regarding the equivalence of one-step and two-
step processes would have been as applicable to Ericsson’s construction at trial as it is
now. The district court, not Ericsson, precluded the parties from arguing such
equivalence by declining to adopt a two-step construction.
Moreover, even if the dissent were correct (which it is not) that waiver applies, we
would disagree with its conclusion that this case does not fit into any of the Supreme
Court’s exceptions. At least the “beyond any doubt” exception, and possibly the
“manifest injustice” exception, would appear to apply. Indeed, Harris’s failure, in over
60 pages of briefing to this court, to advance an argument supporting the district court’s
construction on the merits resoundingly confirms that the need for a reversal on claim
construction is “beyond any doubt.” That the result on infringement under our
construction may not yet be clear does not make the claim construction itself any less
indisputable.

03-1625, -1626 17
argument that the corresponding structure was merely “an algorithm executed by a

computer,” holding instead that it was limited to the specific algorithm disclosed in the

specification. WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1348-49. The specification’s algorithm

resembled the functional language “assigning a plurality of numbers . . .” in the claim

itself and this court ultimately relied on that functional limitation to hold that there was no

infringement. Id. at 1352. On that basis, Harris argues that this court’s construction in

WMS Gaming was merely a restatement of the function, not a legal holding that means-

plus-function claims involving a microprocessor are always limited to the disclosed

algorithm. We do not read WMS Gaming to be so limited. The WMS Gaming court

could have relied on the function to limit the claim, but explicitly based the claim

construction portion of its ruling on structure instead. Id. at 1348-49. A computer-

implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure

disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure

is the algorithm.

Ericsson is correct that WMS Gaming applies to the means-plus-function claims

in this case. Like the claim in WMS Gaming, Harris’s claim 1 includes a means-plus-

function limitation implemented by a microprocessor. Specifically, it recites a

time domain processing means for simulating the time
domain effect of said dispersive medium on signals
transmitted through it by deducing prescribed characteristics
of said medium, and for producing estimates of said
information signals in accordance with a preselected
relationship between said prescribed characteristics of said
simulated effect and said known and received signals.

The district court did not have the benefit of briefing on WMS Gaming, but this

precedent establishes that corresponding structure of the “time domain processing

means” cannot be merely a “symbol processor,” as the district court held. The “symbol

03-1625, -1626 18
processor” construction does not incorporate any disclosed algorithm. We hold that the

corresponding structure for the “time domain processing means” is a microprocessor

programmed to carry out a two-step algorithm in which the processor calculates

generally nondiscrete estimates and then selects the discrete value closest to each

estimate. Specifically, the patent discloses, as corresponding structure, a processor 37,

“advantageously comprised of a pair of processors—a support processor (SUPP) [37A]

and a fast array processor (FAP) [37B,]” shown in Figure 4 and described at col. 11,

l. 37 – col. 12, l. 32, which is programmed to carry out the disclosed “data recovery

algorithm” illustrated in Figures 8A, 8B, and 9 and described at col. 7, l. 18 – col. 8,

l. 38; col. 13, l. 45 – col. 14, l. 20; and col. 15, l. 2 – col. 16, l. 11. Processor 37A carries

out the first part of the algorithm: calculating the effect of the medium and applying it to

the received symbols. ’338 patent, col. 15, ll. 2-6. Processor 37B “examines the . . .

estimates and compares these codes with those corresponding to the code values

capable of being transmitted.” Id. col. 15, ll. 13-17. Thus, each processor performs one

of the steps.

Aspects of this algorithm can vary based on implementation, as the specification

implies. For example, the algorithm need not be applied to “an eight-ary PSK

transmission scheme”; this is an “illustration of the effect of [the] thus-far described

decision process as applied” to such a transmission scheme. Id. col. 15, ll. 27-29. The

same “decision process” could be applied to another type of transmission scheme.

Likewise, as Ericsson concedes, the corresponding structure of the “time domain

processing means” is not limited to Equation (7) disclosed in column 8, line 30 of the

patent. However, the specification characterizes the two-step process as “the

03-1625, -1626 19
invention,” not merely an implementation of the invention. See id. col. 5, ll. 50-55;

col. 7, ll. 18-27. Thus, we reject Harris’s argument that the disclosed algorithm is broad

enough to literally encompass one-step processes.4

Figure 9 illustrates how this algorithm is implemented. In Figure 9, the point

labeled “A” represents the received symbol value. See id. col. 15, ll. 31-33. The point

labeled “∆B” represents the estimate obtained from the matrix calculations performed by

processor 37A. The algorithm then involves the further step of choosing the allowed

value that is closest to the estimate. In Figure 9’s example, this closest discrete value is

010. Id. col. 15, ll. 37-39.

Thus, the district court erred in holding that claims 1, 2, and 33 can cover

systems that implement either a one-step or two-step process. The corresponding

structure limits the “time domain processing means” to a two-step algorithm in which the

processor calculates generally nondiscrete estimates and then selects the discrete

value closest to each estimate, or structural equivalents thereof.

5. Infringement of Claims 1, 2, and 33

Having adopted Ericsson’s construction, we are nonetheless unable to conclude

that it mandates judgment in Ericsson’s favor on claims 1, 2, and 33. Harris refuses to

concede that Ericsson’s accused system lies outside the scope of a two-step claim.

Harris, in fact, argues that even under this claim construction we should affirm the

4
Even if we agreed with Harris that a one-step process was consistent with
the disclosed algorithm, we would not follow Harris to its conclusion that “the district
court’s construction is correct[.]” Harris is clearly referring to the district court’s “one-
step” jury instruction as part of the court’s “construction.” Assuming that label is proper,
we still do not believe that the instruction “claims 1, 2, 33, and 45 are not limited to
equation 7 and cover a one or two-step process” constitutes a claim construction limited
to the disclosed algorithm.

03-1625, -1626 20
judgment of infringement because substantial evidence demonstrates that Ericsson’s

device infringes under § 112 ¶ 6 because its one-step Viterbi MLSE algorithm is

equivalent to the corresponding structure of the “time domain processing means.” Such

evidence, according to Harris, includes testimony by Ericsson’s expert that one-step

and two-step symbol decoding processes perform the same function—producing

estimates; testimony by a Harris expert and a ’338 patent inventor that a one-step

Viterbi algorithm and the two-step process involving equation (7) disclosed in the patent

are both “MLSE shortcuts that dramatically reduce the number of hypotheses that have

to be tested”; testimony by the same two individuals that both of these processes

“select, as the most likely hypothesis, the hypothesis that minimizes the sum of the

squares of successive noise values assumed added to the sequence”; and testimony by

Ericsson’s expert that the second step of selecting discrete decisions is “fairly simple.”

In response, Ericsson cites testimony by Harris’s aforementioned expert and inventor

that the disclosed two-step process is not a form of MLSE, and Ericsson also contends

that Viterbi MLSE would not have been feasible in the long-distance communication

applications for which the ’338 patent was designed because it is too slow to deal with

the large amount of intersymbol interference that arises in those applications.

We are unwilling to decide the issue of § 112 ¶ 6 equivalence in the first instance

in this appeal. Also, the parties did not fully brief the issue of structural equivalence of

one-step and two-step processes before the district court. See Ecolab, Inc. v.

Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Rule 50(d), which governs the

denial of a motion for JMOL, is apposite: “If the appellate court reverses the judgment,

nothing in this rule precludes it from determining that the appellee is entitled to a new

03-1625, -1626 21
trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(d). As permitted by Rule 50(d), we remand the issue of infringement

of claims 1, 2, and 33 to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the

claim construction adopted herein, including a determination of whether a new trial

should be granted.

6. Construction of Claim 45

The parties dispute whether claim 45 is limited to a two-step process. The

district court held that it was not. Each side argues that the plain language of claim 45

supports its interpretation. Ericsson says that a first step of generating nondiscrete

estimates (as that term is used in the written description) is required because the claim

indicates that such estimates are “calculated in accordance with” the simulated effect of

the medium. Harris responds that the calculated “information symbols the values of

which minimize the sum of the squares . . .” need not be nondiscrete values, particularly

emphasizing Ericsson’s expert’s opinion that “closest to” means “not necessarily equal.”

Harris characterizes this statement as an implicit admission that “closest to” includes

“equal to,” so the discrete “estimates” (as that term is used in claim 45) can be identical

to the “information symbols the values of which minimize the sum of the squares . . . .”

If those two sets of symbols can be identical, then there is no first step that produces

nondiscrete values, and the claim covers a one-step process.

We decline to resolve this dispute because it is immaterial to the disposition of

the present appeal. For reasons discussed below, Ericsson has not directly infringed

claim 45, even under Harris’s preferred construction. In addition, there is no claim of

indirect infringement currently pending, because the district court denied Harris’s motion

03-1625, -1626 22
to amend its complaint to include indirect infringement allegations. Accordingly, any

decision we could make on claim construction would not change the result for claim 45.

7. Infringement of Claim 45

The parties dispute whether substantial evidence supports the verdict that

Ericsson committed direct infringement of claim 45. Ericsson argues that, at most, it

contributes to or induces infringement by its customers, and that no evidence in the

record can support a verdict of direct infringement by Ericsson.

Harris again argues for waiver based on jury instructions. Harris asserts that the

sufficiency of the evidence must be evaluated in light of those instructions, which were

phrased in terms of whether the claim limitations were found in the accused products,

not whether Ericsson practiced the method. Under these instructions, Harris says, it is

irrelevant to the sufficiency of the evidence whether Ericsson or its customers practiced

the method. In Harris’s view, the jury answered the question presented to it, and on that

basis found Ericsson liable for infringement. Harris asserts that Ericsson waived its

right to appeal the direct infringement issue when it failed to object to these jury

instructions.

However, Ericsson’s argument that jury instructions are irrelevant to a motion for

JMOL is as applicable to claim 45 as it was to claims 1, 2, and 33. Ericsson requested

JMOL from the district court on the basis that no evidence could convince a reasonable

jury that it directly infringed claim 45 under the controlling law of direct infringement.

Accordingly, Ericsson has not waived its right to argue that no evidence shows direct

infringement on the merits.

03-1625, -1626 23
 In fact, no evidence shows direct infringement. Claim 45 recites a method of

using a communication system, and it can therefore be directly infringed only by one

who uses the system, not by one who makes or sells the components of the system.

The only purported evidence of Ericsson’s direct infringement that Harris cites in its brief

is a flow chart describing a “simulation program” that Ericsson uses for testing its

algorithms. Harris has not shown that the claimed method is actually carried out, rather

than simulated, when Ericsson runs this program. The only other argument Harris

presented for infringement of claim 45 was that Ericsson’s large volume of sales of the

accused devices constituted circumstantial evidence from which we should infer that

Ericsson performed the method of claim 45 by testing its phones before sale.5 Such an

inference does not substitute for substantial evidence that Ericsson directly infringed

claim 45. We do not find substantial evidence to support this claim in the record.

Accordingly, we vacate the jury’s verdict of direct infringement of claim 45. As

mentioned in Part 6, the district court already precluded Harris from amending its

complaint to allege indirect infringement, so we reverse the district court’s denial of

Ericsson’s motion for JMOL on claim 45 and instruct the district court to enter judgment

of noninfringement of claim 45.

C. Damages

1. Reasonable Royalty

We next turn to damages. While our conclusion with regard to infringement

obviates the need to reach this issue at this time, it is possible that the identical issues

5
This contention was made for the first time by Harris’s counsel in response
to questioning at oral argument.

03-1625, -1626 24
will arise if infringement is found on remand. Thus, for purposes of judicial economy,

we review the damages issues briefed by the parties in this appeal.6

Bratic’s reasonable royalty testimony presented the district court with two rates:

a 1.75% rate that would have applied to a five-year license beginning on January 1,

1992, and a 0.5% renewal rate beginning on January 1, 1997. The district court’s

blended rate represents a middle ground between these two.

Harris argued at trial that Wang forecloses consideration of events occurring after

the date of first infringement. The parties agree that the start date of infringement, if

any, was January 1, 1992. Harris is now satisfied with the result of the district court’s

blending, even though it involves consideration of later negotiations, because it “does

not exceed the maximum allowable recovery and should be sustained.” However, to

justify its characterization of 1.75% as the rate behind the “maximum allowable

recovery,” Harris continues to assert that Wang ties the royalty rate to the date of first

infringement, regardless of subsequent events that would have occurred. Harris

emphasizes this court’s statement in Wang that “negotiations should have been

hypothesized at the start of infringement, i.e., when both a patent had issued and

accused products were sold.” 993 F.2d at 869.

Ericsson relies on the undisputed fact that the statutory damages period did not

begin until it received notice of the patent on August 17, 1998. It contends that the

pre-1997 royalty rate is irrelevant, because no damages were available during that

6
The dissent’s concern with judicial economy, so heavily emphasized in its
waiver discussion, appears to have evaporated with respect to the damages issues.
We of course do not believe that we are foreclosed from analyzing the damages issues
presented by this appeal. Cf. Rhodia Chimie v. PPG Indus., 402 F.3d 1371, 1375 n.2
(Fed. Cir. 2005).

03-1625, -1626 25
period. According to Ericsson, nothing in Wang precludes reliance on events

subsequent to a first hypothetical negotiation, so long as that negotiation is considered

to have taken place on the date of first infringement.

We agree in part with the district court’s analysis of our precedent on the

effective date of a reasonable royalty. The court correctly understood Wang as

mandating consideration of a hypothetical negotiation on the date of first infringement

but not automatically excluding evidence of subsequent events. Where we part

company with the district court is over the understanding that it is permissible to use a

blended royalty rate when all of the infringement for which damages are available took

place after the lower rate would have come into effect. To the best of our knowledge,

this issue is one of first impression for this court. We conclude that the rate to apply is

the one that would have been in effect during the period for which damages are

available. In reversing the district court’s legal interpretation, we necessarily conclude

that the court abused its discretion.

The highest royalty rate that the evidence supports for the 1998-2000 damages

period is 0.5%, the rate at which Bratic testified the parties would have renewed their

license in 1997. Assuming that the royalty rate did not depend on whether all four, or

fewer than four, of the asserted claims were infringed—and nothing in the record leads

us to believe that it did so depend—then 0.5% is the applicable royalty rate, should

infringement be found on remand. See Knight v. Texaco, Inc., 786 F.2d 1296, 1299-

1300 (5th Cir. 1986) (reviewing a remitted damages award to determine whether it

03-1625, -1626 26
“exceeds the maximum amount that the trier of fact could have properly awarded”).7

The parties agree that the royalty base for the 1998-2000 damages period is

$3.5 billion, so reasonable royalty damages would be $17,500,000.

Harris’s claim that Ericsson “invited” the erroneously high damages award is not

supported by the case law. Harris essentially contends that Ericsson was responsible

for the jury’s choice of a 1.75% royalty rate because Ericsson’s asserted alternatives,

0.0584% or 0.0439%, were “indefensibly low.” Even if these rates are indefensibly low,

the cases cited by Harris do not imply that Ericsson invited the error. In Chemical

Engineering Corp. v. Essef Industries, 795 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the plaintiff

“never accused a specific . . . device of infringement” and so could not be heard to

complain of a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. Id. at 1572. In Weinar v.

Rollform Inc., 744 F.2d 797 (Fed. Cir. 1984), Rollform proposed the submission of fact

interrogatories to the jury, and Weinar successfully objected. When Weinar reversed

itself and challenged the omission of fact interrogatories as prejudicial, the court

accused Weinar of inviting the error. Id. at 809. Hidden Oaks v. City of Austin, 138

F.3d 1036 (5th Cir. 1984), is similar: having objected when its opponent attempted to

cross-examine a witness on the value of an apartment complex, a party could not assert

that district court erred by not permitting the witness to testify on that issue. Id. at 1051.

Sierra Club v. Yeutter, 926 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1991), precluded the government from

arguing against the standard of review the government itself had encouraged the trial

court to adopt. Id. at 438. Finally, this court looked disapprovingly on an appellant’s

7
However, if the district court is aware of some reason that the royalty rate
would have been different if claim 45 was not infringed, then a lower rate could apply.

03-1625, -1626 27
attempt to overturn the very claim construction it had advocated at trial in Key

Pharmaceuticals, 161 F.3d at 715.

In each of these cases, a party invited an alleged error either by asking the trial

court to make a ruling, the result of which the same party later challenged on appeal, or

by failing to present cognizable arguments or evidence in favor of its position to the trial

court. That situation is not present here. Taking a bold position at trial that later

appears extreme or is abandoned as a matter of prudent appellate strategy does not,

without more, invite error.

2. Willful Infringement

Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of willfulness on the part of

Ericsson. We review this issue here because, like the reasonable royalty, it will arise

again if Ericsson is found to infringe under the two-step claim construction. Additionally,

our modification of the claim construction has no effect on the willfulness issue, because

the willfulness determination could reasonably have been based on issues that, on the

particular facts of this case, are independent of the claim construction dispute on

appeal: the basis for the Lastova opinion and Ericsson’s reliance on it. See generally

Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 828-29 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“Those cases where

willful infringement is found despite the presence of an opinion of counsel generally

involve situations where opinion of counsel was either ignored or found to be

incompetent.”). At trial, Lastova could not confirm that any executive with decision-

making authority in Ericsson’s marketing or engineering departments had ever relied on

the opinion. Also, Ericsson does not contest Harris’s assertion that it is unclear whether

the known recipients of the opinion, two in-house attorneys, had any product or

03-1625, -1626 28
marketing responsibility. While the responsibilities of those who received the opinion

are not dispositive of whether Ericsson “ignored” the opinion, the evidence does

suggest that little, if any, attention was given to the document within Ericsson. Other

evidence undermines the foundations of the opinion. The jury could have concluded

that the information Ericsson supplied to Lastova, in the form of a memo prepared by

two Ericsson engineers, contained false or misleading information about the operation

of Ericsson’s products. The memo, on which Lastova relied, contained questionable

factual assertions, such as a contention that Ericsson’s products do not compensate for

distortion in received information. Additionally, Lastova admitted that, contrary to his

usual practice when offering an opinion on infringement issues, he did not obtain

documentation from Ericsson on how the accused products work, except for the memo

that Ericsson specifically prepared for his use in drafting his opinion.

This evidence provided the jury with some basis for believing that Ericsson

ignored the opinion of counsel it received regarding the ’338 patent; that the opinion

was simply a rehashing of Ericsson’s own internal conclusions on noninfringement,

without independent verification by opinion counsel; and that Ericsson failed to convey

accurate information to its opinion counsel. Were we sitting as triers of fact, we might

not have come to the same conclusion, but on a substantial evidence standard of

review we do not see a basis to overturn the jury’s finding of willfulness.

3. Amount of Enhanced Damages (Cross-Appeal)

In awarding the consequent enhanced damages, the district court did not abuse

its discretion. In so holding, we reject Harris’s contention on cross-appeal that the

$1 million enhanced damages award was too small. District courts have broad

03-1625, -1626 29
discretion in determining the amount of enhanced damages to award and in calculating

attorney’s fees. Indeed, they do not have to award such damages at all, in spite of a

finding of willfulness, if the case presents reasons not to award them. Jurgens v. CBK,

Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566, 1570-72 (Fed. Cir. 1996). While the court’s $1 million enhanced

damages award is small compared to the legal maximum of treble damages, a court is

free to take into account factors related to the defendant’s level of culpability, as well as

other factors. See Read Corp., 970 F.2d 816. The trial judge apparently concluded that

Ericsson’s willfulness was not highly culpable. We are satisfied that the judge properly

exercised her discretion in deciding that an enhanced damages award closer to the

legal maximum was not warranted.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we:

VACATE the jury’s verdict of infringement; VACATE the district court’s denial of

JMOL on claims 1, 2, and 33; REVERSE the district court’s denial of JMOL on claim 45;

and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of our claim

construction and for entry of judgment of noninfringement of claim 45.

IV. COSTS

No costs.

VACATED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED

03-1625, -1626 30
 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

03-1625, -1626

HARRIS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,

v.

ERICSSON INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the court’s holding and reasoning. First, the court

allows Ericsson to submit its WMS Gaming claim construction argument, for the first

time, on appeal. Contrary to the court’s analysis, the shift in claim construction is more

than an “infinitesimal tweak in scope.” The facts belie that position. It is in fact a

paradigm shift which should not be tolerated. Ericsson procedurally defaulted by not

making the argument to the trial court, and the facts of this case weigh against excusing

the waiver. The court’s approach misapplies our waiver jurisprudence and fails to

understand the policies that regulate the proper relation of trial and appellate courts.

Second, although it finds the infringement judgments flawed, the court nonetheless

delves into the trial court’s damage analysis. There is no final determination of liability,

therefore the damages analysis is advisory. Issuing an advisory opinion is improper

and we should refrain from doing so.
 For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.

I.

A.

The procedural facts are relatively straightforward. On July 20, 1999, this court

issued its opinion in WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Technology, 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed.

Cir. 1999). The court denied rehearing en banc on September 17, 1999. In WMS

Gaming, the court held that the structure of a computing means, for purposes of section

112, ¶ 6, is the microprocessor programmed to carry out an algorithm recited in a

patent’s written description. 184 F.3d at 1349. The algorithm effectively converts the

computer to a special purpose device that serves the function recited in the claim. Id.

Although on appeal Ericsson argues the theory propounded by WMS Gaming, it never

made the argument in the relevant pre-trial or trial proceedings below.

B.

At the pre-trial motions and hearings Harris and Ericsson vigorously disputed the

proper construction of the time domain processing means in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.

4,365,338 (“the ’338 patent”). The relevant language was

time domain processing means for simulating the time domain effect of
said dispersive medium on signals transmitted through it by deducing
prescribed characteristics of said medium, and for producing estimates of
said information signals in accordance with a preselected relationship
between said prescribed characteristics of said simulated effect and said
known and received signals[.]

’338 patent, col. 17, ll. 54-61.

The matter was amply briefed by competent counsel. The parties submitted a

joint claim construction brief on November 24, 1999. On December 2, 1999, five

months after WMS Gaming issued, Ericsson filed its opening Markman brief. Ericsson

03-1625, -1626
-2-
filed a reply brief on December 6, 1999. The Master conducted a hearing on December

13-15, 1999. The Master issued a “draft” claim construction order on February 29,

2000, and asked for comments from the parties. Ericsson filed objections. After

considering them, the Master issued his final two hundred page claim construction order

on March 29, 2000.

The Special Master ruled that the “time domain processing means” of claim 1

was a means plus function claim term within the meaning of § 112, ¶ 6. The Special

Master further ruled that the function of the time domain processing means was twofold:

(1) “simulating the time domain effect of said dispersive medium on signals transmitted

through it by deducing prescribed characteristics of said medium”; and (2) “producing

estimates of said information signals in accordance with a preselected relationship

between said prescribed characteristics of said simulated effect and said known and

received signals.” (Special Master’s Final Claim Construction Order)

Between filing the joint brief in November 1999, and the Master’s final order in

March 2000, Ericsson made a series of claim construction arguments. In none of those

arguments did Ericsson assert, directly or indirectly, the WMS Gaming argument now

pressed on appeal. First, in the November joint brief and its opening Markman brief,

Ericsson argued that the structure of the “time domain processing means” was fast

array processor 37A. In its December 6 reply brief, however, Ericsson subtly shifted

positions. In the reply, Ericsson argued that the relevant structure was “the fast array

processor 37A and the support processor 37B in Fig. 4 and its equivalents.” Ericsson

further argued for limiting the “producing estimates” function identified by the Master.

Thus, Ericsson argued that “producing estimates” meant “selecting discrete values that

03-1625, -1626
-3-
are closest to nondiscrete values that are close, but not equal to the unknown discrete

values.” Put differently, Ericsson vigorously contended that a “two-step” analytical

process, as manifested in the “producing estimates” provision, was a functional

limitation on the time domain processing means. As the court observes, ante at 14,

Ericsson never argued to the trial court or Special Master – as it does on appeal – that

the relevant structure was some group of microprocessors implementing the “decoding

algorithm” described in the ’338 patent. See ’338 patent, cols. 5-9. In spite of the subtle

changes Ericsson never made the WMS Gaming argument at this, or any other, stage

of the trial proceedings.

Ultimately, the Special Master ruled that the relevant structure for the time

domain processing means was “symbol processor 37.” On April 18, 2000, Ericsson

objected to the Master’s final order and sought reconsideration in the district court.

Nearly a year later, on March 23, 2001, the district court held a hearing on Ericsson’s

objections. In the April 2000 objections, and at the March 2001 hearing, Ericsson

renewed its “producing estimates” argument. Ericsson thus elected to argue for a

limitation on the function, rather than the structure, of the claimed time domain

processing means. In neither the April 2000 objections, nor at the March 2001 hearing,

did Ericsson make its current WMS Gaming argument to the district court.

The parties filed post-hearing briefs. On May 29, 2001, the district court

overruled Ericsson’s objections relating to the “producing estimates” function, but

remanded for clarification, by the Master, concerning the construction of the term

“information signals the value of which for which [sic] minimizes the sum of the squares”

in claim 2. On May 31, 2001, the Master replied that no further clarification of the

03-1625, -1626
-4-
disputed claim 2 term was required. In July 2001, the district court adopted the Master’s

recommendation.

By letter brief on June 12, 2002, Ericsson sought further revision to the claim

construction of the “information signals” term in claim 2. On August 2, 2002, the district

court overruled Ericsson’s continued objection and approved the Master’s May 31,

2001, claim construction.

From October 7 to 29, 2002, three years after this court decided WMS Gaming,

the lower court conducted a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict of infringement and

assessed damages. Ericsson renewed its Rule 50 motion, asking for a judgment of no

infringement. On August 7, 2003, the trial court denied it and entered judgment for

Harris.

C.

In short, between the November 1999 joint claim construction and the trial court’s

August 2002 ruling, Ericsson actually had at least ten opportunities – in the form of

briefs and hearings – to make its claim construction arguments concerning the structure

of the time domain processing means. Yet never in (1) the joint claim construction

statement; (2) the opening Markman brief; (3) the reply brief; (4) the three days of

argument at the Markman hearing; (5) post hearing briefs to the Master; (6) April 2000

objections to the Master’s final report; (7) the district court’s March 2001 hearing on the

objections; (8) post-hearing briefs; (9) objections to the Master’s May 2001 ruling; nor

(10) Ericsson’s June 2002 letter brief to the trial court; did Ericsson ever argue that

WMS Gaming meant the structure of the claimed “time domain processing means” was

the decoding algorithm described in the ’338 patent specification. At each of these

03-1625, -1626
-5-
many opportunities, Ericsson argued that the structure of the “time domain processing

means” was either processor 37A or processors 37A and 37B. The function, Ericsson

argued, was limited by the meaning of “estimates” in “producing estimates”. Nor did

Ericsson make its current argument at any other time between the November 1999 joint

claim construction brief and the August 2003 ruling denying Ericsson’s Rule 50(b)

motion. Throughout the proceedings below Ericsson argued, without fail, that the

structure of the time domain processing means was some combination of the

microprocessors disclosed in the ’338 patent.

Now, on appeal, Ericsson awakens to the benefit of WMS Gaming and argues for

the first time that it controls. Specifically, Ericsson now contends that the structure of

the “time domain processing means” in claim 1 consists of “processors 37A and 37B

programmed to perform the disclosed two-step algorithm [in the ’338 patent].”

II.

It is a long-settled rule that appellate courts will not consider an issue neither

pressed nor passed upon below. See United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 41 (1992)

(“Our traditional rule . . . precludes a grant of certiorari only when the question

presented was not pressed or passed upon below” [internal citation omitted]); Duignan

v. United States, 274 U.S. 195, 200 (1927) (stating that “[i]t is only in exceptional cases .

. . that questions not pressed or passed upon below are reviewed,” and collecting

cases). The rule fully applies to claim construction arguments not made to the trial

court. See Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1344-46

(Fed. Cir. 2001); Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir.

1997).

03-1625, -1626
-6-
 As the Supreme Court has explained, this rule of appellate procedure is

“essential in order that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they

believe relevant to the issues . . . (and) in order that litigants may not be surprised on

appeal by final decision there of issues upon which they have had no opportunity to

introduce evidence.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976) (quoting Hormel v.

Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941)). Fairness and finality lie at the core of this

doctrine. Thus, the Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he verdict of a jury will not ordinarily

be set aside for error not brought to the attention of the trial court. This practice is

founded upon considerations of fairness to the court and to the parties and of the public

interest in bringing litigation to an end after fair opportunity has been afforded to present

all issues of law and fact.” United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 159 (1936)

(collecting cases). This court has also recognized the rule’s importance in lending

procedural certainty to claim construction arguments at trial. “A party’s argument should

not be a moving target. The argument at the trial and appellate level should be

consistent, thereby ensuring a clear presentation of the issue to be resolved, an

adequate opportunity for response and evidentiary development by the opposing party,

and a record reviewable by the appellate court that is properly crystallized around and

responsive to the asserted argument.” Finnegan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d

1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999).1

1
The majority’s assertion that “[a]n appellate court retains case-by-case
discretion over whether to apply waiver,” maj. op. at 14, mischaracterizes the limitations
on our appellate jurisdiction and ignores the policies advanced by a sound waiver rule.
Contrary to the ad hoc approach that the majority suggests, the Supreme Court is clear
that waiver will be excused only in “extraordinary circumstances.” Duignan, 274 U.S. at
200. As discussed further below, this court has outlined the exceptional circumstances
in which it might be proper to excuse a waiver. The majority, however, does not explain
03-1625, -1626
-7-
 The courts describe the failure to make an argument to the trial court as a waiver,

suggesting a party’s conscious choice to withhold a known argument.2 That description

aptly describes Ericsson’s failure to press its WMS Gaming argument below, as the

decision plainly issued before any claim construction was undertaken in this action, and

Ericsson had numerous and sufficient opportunities to raise the issue even after the

claim construction had been concluded. Ericsson, moreover, is presumed to know the

law. See, e.g., Pittsburg & L.A. Iron Co. v. Cleveland Iron Min. Co., 178 U.S. 270, 278

(1900). Ericsson waived its WMS Gaming argument by not making it below. Although

the court need not decide it, the waiver may have attached when Ericsson failed to

make the argument to the Special Master, in which case the case comes to us with two

levels of procedural defaults. In any event, Ericsson has lost the right to make this

argument on appeal. See Sage Prods., 126 F.3d at 1426 (“If a litigant seeks to show

error in a trial court’s overlooking an argument, it must first present that argument to the

trial court. . . . [T]his court does not ‘review’ that which was not presented to the district

court.”).

Relying on Interactive Gifts and Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.

Cir. 2004), the court holds that the argument was not waived. See maj. op. at 15. In

Interactive Gifts this court distinguished between new claim construction arguments,

which “changed the scope of the claim construction,” and arguments that merely

clarified or defended “the original scope” of a claim construction offered below, or

offered additional support for existing claim construction arguments by further citation to

how this case fits any of the recognized exceptions, nor why a new exception is
warranted.
2
Cf. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938) (“A waiver is ordinarily an
intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.”).

03-1625, -1626
-8-
the patent specification. Interactive Gifts, 256 F.3d at 1346. “Clarifying” arguments are

not new, and not within the rule of waiver. Gaus applied that rule to find no waiver

where, on appeal, the appellant altered the phrasing but not the content of the claim

construction argument at issue. See Gaus, 363 F.3d at 1288. Pointing to this line of

cases the court concludes that, because Ericsson focused on the concept of a two-step

signal processing routine as a necessary limitation to the asserted claim – though

through function rather than structure of the time domain processing means – the

argument on appeal merely “clarifies” the Ericsson arguments below. Maj. op. at 14-15.

The majority’s conclusion is plainly contrary to the law. First, its reliance on

Interactive Gifts and Gaus is misplaced. Neither case involved a means-plus-function

claim term, nor did the parties in those cases try to substitute an argument on structure

for an argument on function. Second, contrary to the majority’s suggestion, ante at 15,

our cases draw a firm distinction between the function, and the structure, of a means

plus function claim term under § 112, ¶ 6. Shifting its premise from function to structure,

Ericsson has presented a new and different argument. There clearly was a distinct

paradigm shift in its argument and not merely a clarification.

That new argument has different implications for both the claim construction

process, and the subsequent infringement analysis. First, the function and structure

draw their meaning from separate, specifically defined components of the patent. When

construing the term the court’s task always begins with identifying the function, “staying

true to the claim language and the limitations expressly recited by the claims.” Omega

Eng’g, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Generation

II Orthotics, Inc. v. Med. Tech., Inc., 263 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“When

03-1625, -1626
-9-
construing the functional statement in a means-plus-function limitation, we must take

great care not to impermissibly limit the function by adopting a function different from

that explicitly recited in the claim.”). By contrast, defining the structure turns on what is

recited in the written description, clearly linked to the stated function, and necessary to

perform that function. Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1321. These are distinct analyses

that apply different analytical processes. An argument about function directs the court

to the claim language itself, whereas an argument about structure directs the court to

search the written description for necessary and linked structural descriptions.

Second, the function and structure have sharply distinct roles in the infringement

analysis. Statutory infringement first requires that the accused device perform the

identical function as the claimed means, but allows infringement with merely equivalent

structure.3 See Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1328-29; Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech.

Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1266-67 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The infringement analysis for a § 112,

¶ 6 claim, in short, is more sensitive to perturbations in the definition of function (which

must be exact) than structure (which allows for equivalents).

Ericsson made the function argument below. That was a strategic judgment, by

Ericsson and its sophisticated counsel, concerning what they thought they could prove

about the function of their accused devices. In short, had Ericsson prevailed on that

function argument, in due course it presumably would have prevailed on summary

judgment without the expense of trial. Ericsson must bear the legal burden of that

strategic choice of arguments.

3
The majority overlooks the fact that the jury returned a verdict that
Ericsson literally infringed claim 1.

03-1625, -1626
- 10 -
 Which brings us to the heart of the matter. As noted above, waiver is the

procedural device that makes trial the “main event” rather than a “tryout for the road” on

a dispositive argument. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 (1977). As the Supreme

Court noted in Wainwright, “[a]ny procedural rule which encourages the result that . . .

proceedings [below] be as free of error as possible is thoroughly desirable[.]” Id. The

fact that this matter concerns claim construction, a legal issue this court reviews de

novo primarily on the basis of intrinsic evidence, does not alter the purpose of the

procedural device. Just as Wainwright observed with regard to the rule of Fay v. Noia,4

refusing to enforce the waiver rule here “may encourage ‘sandbagging’” on the part of

patent counsel, “who may take their chances” on a verdict of no infringement in trial

court “with the intent to raise” their new claim construction arguments on appeal “if their

initial gamble does not pay off.” Id. at 89. The facts of this case suggest that is

precisely what Ericsson has tried to do. Unfortunately, given the court’s holding, their

gamble has paid off. We have now established a new exception to the waiver rule – the

Oops I Forgot Rule: no matter how many opportunities you have below to make the

proper argument now you can make any argument at any time and the court will allow it.

The ultimate issue, of course, is the factual matter of infringement. Had Ericsson

made its current argument below, Harris would have presented different evidence to

meet it. Discovery may have taken a different course to meet the different issues. The

jury would have heard a different case. Indeed, as the court notes, “the parties did not

4
In Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 439 (1963), the Supreme Court suggested a
broad standard under which state convicts could obtain federal habeas review absent a
“knowing and deliberate waiver”, by the prisoner, of an asserted federal constitutional
issue. In Wainwright, the Court rejected the Fay suggestion of such a narrow waiver
rule, concluding that it encouraged strategic manipulation by litigants.

03-1625, -1626
- 11 -
fully brief the issue of structural equivalence of one-step and two-step processes before

the district court.” Maj. op. at 21. The court overlooks that this briefing is missing

because Ericsson argued that the two step limitation was functional, not structural, as

they now argue on appeal. The gap in the record, which sufficiently troubles the court

to warrant a remand, belies the court’s contention that the new claim construction

argument embodies the “same concept” as the arguments that Ericsson pressed below.

Fairness and finality are not served by allowing Ericsson, instead, to keep the current

argument in pectorum for appeal while trying the case on a different theory. The court

should note that, unless a waiver is enforced, Ericsson’s failure to make this argument

in a timely fashion to the trial court will have wasted enormous resources before the

Special Master, the trial court, the jury, and on behalf of the parties. All of which signal

the court’s error in finding that the WMS Gaming arguments are not waived.

For the same reasons, there is no cause for this court to excuse Ericsson’s

waiver. The Supreme Court has recognized that the appellate courts have discretion,

on the facts of individual cases, to resolve issues not passed upon below. See

Singleton, 428 U.S. at 121. That discretion, however, is limited to exceptional

circumstances not present here. Ericsson had abundant opportunity to make its current

arguments below. There is, in this case, no manifest injustice in holding Ericsson to its

choice of arguments before the Special Master and the trial court; nor does Ericsson’s

new argument raise issues of great public concern; nor, as the court’s remand indicates,

is the proper resolution of the new claim construction and infringement theories “beyond

any doubt”. Singleton, 428 U.S. at 121. But with its holding the court improperly

encourages parties to take their chances on a high stakes, potentially cost saving

03-1625, -1626
- 12 -
argument at trial, while proliferating new arguments on appeal. For various reasons this

court already has a high reversal rate on claim construction issues, which tends to

encourage appeals and, perhaps, discourage trial courts from heavily investing in claim

constructions below. The court’s holding will only intensify this problem, and further

distort the proper trial-appellate relationship regarding claim construction.

In short, the court’s holding is misguided. Ericsson waived its current claim

construction argument, and the court should affirm the judgment of infringement of

claims 1, 2, and 33 on that basis.

III.

In addition, although it expressly recognizes that “our conclusion with regard to

infringement obviates the need to reach the issue [of damages] at this time,” the

majority proceeds to decide the damages issue in the Harris cross-appeal. Maj. op. at

24. It is axiomatic that this court should not render advisory opinions on appeal.

Because with the court’s mandate liability remains undetermined, the court should

simply vacate the damages judgment.

* * *

In sum, I disagree with the court’s refusal to conclude that Ericsson waived its

appellate claim construction arguments under WMS Gaming. Moreover, the court

simply should not delve into unnecessary damages issues. For these reasons, I

respectfully dissent.

03-1625, -1626
- 13 -