RE:RE:Question The CAFC only looks at "did the jury hear evidence to arrive at their verdict"?
That is why juries are total cr@p shoots. They can go either way.
It just ends up being a "battle of the experts". And whoever the jury sides with. And Ken Stanwood is an American inventor so American juries would sympathize with that. Not so for a Canadian inventor named Hatim.
The CAFC is only looking at whether the jury heard evidence to arrive at their decision. They don't care what decision they made.
The decision by the judge to order a new trial on damages was because he thought that the estimate was not isolated to the invention but on LTE broadly. It was not. WiLan very persuasively demonstrates in their CAFC submission that Madisetti's approach was isolated to the invention at hand. They have slides and everything that demonstrates that fact.
The original verdict will be reinstated if the CAFC court agrees that the Madisetti expert opinion was valid. The entire second trial argument hangs exclusively on that. If the CAFC agrees that the Madisetti opinion was reasonable then the original verdict will stand.
That is why on Friday if you hear lots of questions around that by the CAFC you know where this is going.
And if they openly dismiss the argument Apple is advancing, like they did in VirnetX, that triggered the immediate rating in the shares following the hearing.