Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •   United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    APPLE INC. AND NEXT SOFTWARE, INC.
    (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.),
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    MOTOROLA, INC. (now known as Motorola Solu-
    tions, Inc.) AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
    Defendants-Cross Appellants.
    ______________________
    2012-1548, -1549
    ______________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Illinois in No. 11-CV-8540, Circuit
    Judge Richard A. Posner.
    ______________________
    Decided: April 25, 2014
    ______________________
    E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, Orrick, Herrington & Sut-
    cliffe LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiffs-
    ppellants. With him on the brief were MARK S. DAVIES,
    RACHEL M. MCKENZIE and T. VANN PEARCE, JR. of Wash-
    ington, DC; and MATTHEW D. POWERS, Tensegrity Law
    Group LLP, of Redwood Shores, California. Of counsel
    was KATHERINE M. KOPP, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
    LLP, of Washington, DC.
    2                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    DAVID A. NELSON, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sulli-
    van, LLP, argued for defendants-cross appellants. With
    him on the brief were STEPHEN A. SWEDLOW; BRIAN C.
    CANNON, of Redwood Shores, California; KATHLEEN M.
    SULLIVAN and EDWARD J. DEFRANCO, of New York, New
    York; and CHARLES K. VERHOEVEN, of San Francisco,
    California. Of counsel were RAYMOND N. NIMROD and
    DAVID ELIHU, of New York, New York; and AMANDA SCOTT
    WILLIAMSON, of Chicago, Illinois.
    JOEL DAVIDOW, Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, of
    Washington, DC, for amicus curiae The American Anti-
    trust Institute. With him on the brief was ROBERT J.
    CYNKAR.
    CHARLES W. SHIFLEY, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., of Chi-
    cago, Illinois, for amicus curiae The Intellectual Property
    Law Association of Chicago.
    DEBRA J. MCCOMAS, Haynes and Boone, LLP, of Dal-
    las, Texas, for amici curiae Altera Corporation, et al.
    With her on the brief was DAVID L. MCCOMBS. Of counsel
    on the brief were MARTA BECKWITH, Cisco Systems, Inc.,
    of San Jose, California; ELIZABETH LAUNER, Logitech Inc.,
    of Newark, California; and RICHARD J. LUTTON, JR., Nest
    Labs, Inc., of Palo Alto, California.
    RICHARD M. BRUNELL, Senior Advisor for competition
    matters, United States Federal Trade Commission, of
    Washington, DC, for amicus curiae United States Federal
    Trade Commission. With him on the brief were DAVID C.
    SHONKA, Acting General Counsel, WILLIAM COHEN, Depu-
    ty General Counsel, WILLIAM F. ADKINSON, JR., Attorney
    and SUZANNE MUNCK af ROSENCHOLD, Chief Counsel for
    Intellectual Property.
    PETER M. LANCASTER, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, of
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae The Institute
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           3
    of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Incorporated.
    With him on the brief were MICHAEL A. LINDSAY, of Min-
    neapolis, Minnesota, and EILEEN M. LACH, General Coun-
    sel and Chief Compliance Officer IEEE, of New York, New
    York.
    PAUL D. CLEMENT, Brancroft PLLC, of Washington,
    DC, for amici curiae Verizon Communications Inc., et al.
    With him on the brief was D. ZACHARY HUDSON.
    TINA M. CHAPPELL, Director of Intellectual Property
    Policy, Intel Corporation, of Chandler, Arizona, for amicus
    curiae Intel Corporation. With her on the brief were
    THOMAS G. HUNGER and MATTHEW D. MCGILL, Gibson,
    Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Washington, DC.
    RICHARD S. TAFFET, Bingham McCutchen LLP, of New
    York, New York, for amicus curiae Qualcomm Incorpo-
    rated. With him on the brief were PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE,
    of Boston, Massachusetts and DAVID B. SALMONS, of
    Washington, DC.
    BRIAN R. MATSUI, Morrison & Foerster LLP, of Wash-
    ington, DC, for amicus curiae Law Professors Thomas F.
    Cotter, et al. With him on the brief was NATALIE R. RAM.
    ROY T. ENGLERT, JR., Robbins, Russell, Englert, Or-
    seck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, of Washington, DC, for
    amicus curiae, BSA │The Software Alliance.
    PATRICK J. FLINN, Alston and Bird LLP, of Atlanta,
    Georgia, for amici curiae Nokia Corporation, et al. With
    him on the brief was KEITH E. BROYLES.
    BRIAN C. RIOPELLE, McGuire Woods LLP, of Rich-
    mond, Virginia, for amicus curiae Research in Motion
    Limited. With him on the brief were ROBERT M. TYLER
    and KRISTEN M. CALLEJA.
    4                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Sidley Austin LLP, of
    Chicago, Illinois, for amicus curiae Microsoft Corporation.
    With him on the brief were RICHARD A. CEDEROTH and
    NATHANIEL C. LOVE. Of counsel on the brief were T.
    ANDREW CULBERT and DAVID E. KILLOUGH, Microsoft
    Corporation, of Redmond, West Virginia.
    ______________________
    Before RADER, Chief Judge, PROST and REYNA, Circuit
    Judges.
    Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.
    Opinion dissenting in part filed by Chief Judge
    RADER.
    Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part
    filed by Circuit Judge PROST.
    REYNA, Circuit Judge
    Plaintiffs Apple Inc. and Next Software, Inc. (“Apple”)
    filed a complaint against Defendants Motorola, Inc. and
    Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) on October 29, 2010
    in the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
    trict of Wisconsin, asserting infringement of three pa-
    tents. Motorola counterclaimed, asserting six of its own
    patents. Apple amended its complaint to include an
    additional twelve patents. Both parties also sought
    declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity.
    After claim construction began in Wisconsin, the case
    was transferred to the United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Posner sitting by
    designation. The district court in Illinois completed claim
    construction. Based upon its claim construction decisions,
    the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement
    with respect to certain claims and excluded the vast
    majority of both parties’ damages expert evidence for the
    remaining claims. With little expert evidence deemed
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            5
    admissible, the court granted summary judgment that
    neither side was entitled to any damages or an injunction.
    Despite infringement being assumed, the district court
    dismissed all claims with prejudice before trial.
    Only six patents are at issue on appeal: Apple’s U.S.
    Patent Nos. 7,479,949; 6,343,263; and 5,946,647; and
    Motorola’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,359,898; 6,175,559; and
    5,319,712. The parties contest the district court’s claim
    construction, admissibility, damages, and injunction
    decisions. As detailed below, we affirm the district court’s
    claim construction decisions, with the exception of its
    construction of Apple’s ’949 patent. With a minor excep-
    tion, the district court’s decision to exclude the damages
    evidence presented by both Apple and Motorola is re-
    versed. We also reverse the district court’s grant of
    summary judgment of no damages for infringement of
    Apple’s patents. Based upon our reversal of the district
    court’s claim construction of the ’949 patent, we vacate
    the court’s grant of summary judgment regarding Apple’s
    request for an injunction. The court’s decision that
    Motorola is not entitled to an injunction for infringement
    of the FRAND-committed ’898 patent is affirmed. We
    address these, and all related issues, in turn.
    CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
    The parties raise claim construction issues regarding
    Apple’s ’949, ’263, and ’647 patents and Motorola’s ’559
    and ’712 patents. Claim construction is a question of law
    that we review de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,
    
    138 F.3d 1448
    , 1454-55 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
    Apple’s ’949 patent
    The district court construed claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 of
    the ’949 patent and, based upon its construction, granted
    Motorola’s motion for summary judgment of non-
    infringement for the majority of the accused products.
    Because the district court mistakenly construed certain
    6                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    limitations as means-plus-function limitations, we reverse
    its claim construction and vacate the subsequent sum-
    mary judgment decision.
    The ’949 patent discloses the use of finger contacts to
    control a touchscreen computer. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 of
    the ’949 patent are recited below, with the limitations at
    issue emphasized. Claim 1 recites:
    A computing device, comprising: a touch screen
    display; one or more processors; memory; and one
    or more programs,
    wherein the one or more programs are stored in
    the memory and configured to be executed by the
    one or more processors, the one or more programs
    including:
    instructions for detecting one or more finger con-
    tacts with the touch screen display;
    instructions for applying one or more heuristics to
    the one or more finger contacts to determine a
    command for the device; and
    instructions for processing the command;
    wherein the one or more heuristics comprise:
    a vertical screen scrolling heuristic for determin-
    ing that the one or more finger contacts corre-
    spond to a one-dimensional vertical screen
    scrolling command rather than a two-dimensional
    screen translation command based on an angle of
    initial movement of a finger contact with respect to
    the touch screen display;
    a two-dimensional screen translation heuristic for
    determining that the one or more finger contacts
    correspond to the two-dimensional screen transla-
    tion command rather than the one-dimensional
    vertical screen scrolling command based on the
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             7
    angle of initial movement of the finger contact with
    respect to the touch screen display; and
    a next item heuristic for determining that the one
    or more finger contacts correspond to a command
    to transition from displaying a respective item in
    a set of items to displaying a next item in the set
    of items.
    ’949 patent at col. 122 l. 37 - col. 123 l. 2 (emphases add-
    ed). Claim 2 recites:
    The computing device of claim 1, wherein the one
    or more heuristics include a heuristic for deter-
    mining that the one or more finger contacts corre-
    spond to a command to translate content within a
    frame rather than translating an entire page that
    includes the frame.
    
    Id.
     at col. 123, lns 3-7 (emphasis added). Claim 10 recites:
    The computing device of claim 9, wherein the first
    set of heuristics comprises a heuristic for deter-
    mining that the one or more first finger contacts
    correspond to a one-dimensional horizontal screen
    scrolling command rather than the two-
    dimensional screen translation command based on
    the angle of initial movement of the finger contact
    with respect to the touch screen display.
    
    Id.
     at col. 124, ll. 1-7. The district court first found that
    the claim term “heuristic” was not indefinite, instead
    construing it as “one or more rules to be applied to data to
    assist in drawing inferences from that data.” Next, the
    court found that the “heuristic” limitations in claims 1, 2,
    9, and 10 described functions “without describing the
    structure necessary to perform the functions.” According-
    ly, the court concluded that these claim limitations were
    means-plus-function limitations under 
    35 U.S.C. § 112
    ,
    ¶6, despite not reciting the word “means.” The court next
    8                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    found that the specification contained sufficient “corre-
    sponding structure” capable of performing the claimed
    functions. 
    35 U.S.C. § 112
    . In doing so, the court limited
    the “next item heuristic” in claim 1 to “a heuristic that
    uses as one input a user’s finger tap on the right side of
    the device’s touch screen.” Based upon this construction,
    Motorola moved for summary judgment of non-
    infringement. The court concluded that the only accused
    products that use a “finger tap” in this manner are those
    that come pre-loaded with a specific program: the Amazon
    Kindle application. The court granted Motorola’s motion
    for summary judgment of non-infringement for the re-
    maining accused products.
    On appeal, Motorola again argues that “heuristic” is
    indefinite. In the alternative, Motorola argues that the
    district court correctly concluded that the heuristic limita-
    tions were drafted in means-plus-function format and
    correctly limited the “next item heuristic” limitation to
    the finger tap gesture. Apple points out that the claims
    do not use the word “means” and that this creates a
    strong presumption against construing the limitations as
    means-plus-function limitations. Apple argues that the
    heuristic limitations connote sufficiently definite struc-
    ture such that Motorola has not overcome this strong
    presumption.
    Whether claim language invokes Section 112, ¶6 is a
    question of law that we review de novo. Inventio AG v.
    ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 
    649 F.3d 1350
    ,
    1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood
    Lighting, Inc., 
    382 F.3d 1354
    , 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    Section 112, ¶6 states:
    An element in a claim for a combination may be
    expressed as a means or step for performing a
    specified function without the recital of structure,
    material, or acts in support thereof, and such
    claim shall be construed to cover the correspond-
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             9
    ing structure, material, or acts described in the
    specification and equivalents thereof.
    
    35 U.S.C. § 112
    , ¶6. The overall means-plus-function
    analysis is a two-step process. Naturally, there is some
    analytical overlap between these two steps. In the first
    step, we must determine if the claim limitation is drafted
    in means-plus-function format. As part of this step, we
    must construe the claim limitation to decide if it connotes
    “sufficiently definite structure” to a person of ordinary
    skill in the art, which requires us to consider the specifi-
    cation (among other evidence). In the second step, if the
    limitation is in means-plus-function format, we must
    specifically review the specification for “corresponding
    structure.” Thus, while these two “structure” inquiries
    are inherently related, they are distinct.
    The Dissent is concerned that we have impermissibly
    looked for corresponding structure in the specification
    before deciding that the claim is in means-plus-function
    format thereby creating a new rule that renders “every
    means-plus-function claim term indefinite.” J. Prost
    Dissent at 3-4 (emphasis in original) (“Dissent”). This is
    not our analysis. The Dissent correctly notes that the
    first step in the means-plus-function analysis requires us
    to determine whether the entire claim limitation at issue
    connotes “sufficiently definite structure” to a person of
    ordinary skill in the art. Dissent at 2-3. In so doing, we
    naturally look to the specification, prosecution history,
    and relevant external evidence to construe the limitation.
    While this inquiry may be similar to looking for corre-
    sponding structure in the specification, our precedent
    requires it when deciding whether a claim limitation
    lacking means connotes sufficiently definite structure to a
    person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Inventio, 
    649 F.3d at 1357
     (“It is proper to consult the intrinsic record,
    including the written description, when determining if a
    challenger has rebutted the presumption that a claim
    lacking the term ‘means’ recites sufficiently definite
    10                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    structure.”); Lighting World, 
    382 F.3d at 1360-64
     (exam-
    ining the written description and external evidence); Flo
    Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos, 
    697 F.3d 1367
    , 1374
    (Fed. Cir. 2012) (examining remaining claim language,
    written description, and external evidence); Linear Tech.
    Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 
    379 F.3d 1311
    , 1320 (Fed.
    Cir. 2004) (examining remaining claim language and
    external evidence). Because these inquiries are distinct,
    it is possible to find that a claim limitation does not
    connote sufficiently definite structure despite the pres-
    ence of some corresponding structure in the specification.
    See, e.g., Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software,
    
    462 F.3d 1344
    , 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“MIT”); Welker
    Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 
    550 F.3d 1090
    , 1096-97 (Fed.
    Cir. 2008). As such, not “every” mean-plus-function
    limitation is indefinite under our precedent; only those
    that lack the term means, do not connote sufficiently
    definite structure, and lack corresponding structure. We
    do not state or apply a different rule in this case. In this
    case, as we find that the claims connote sufficiently
    definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
    we do not reach the second step of the means-plus-
    function analysis.
    As the district court recognized, when a claim limita-
    tion lacks the term “means,” it creates a rebuttable pre-
    sumption that Section 112, ¶6 does not apply. See, e.g.,
    Lighting World, 
    382 F.3d at 1358
    ; CCS Fitness, Inc. v.
    Brunswick Corp., 
    288 F.3d 1359
    , 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
    This presumption may be overcome if the claim fails to
    recite “sufficiently definite structure” or merely recites a
    “function without reciting sufficient structure for perform-
    ing that function.” Linear, 
    379 F.3d at 1319
     (quoting
    Watts v. XL Sys. Inc., 
    232 F.3d 887
    , 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000));
    see also Inventio, 
    649 F.3d at 1356
    . We have repeatedly
    characterized this presumption as “strong” and “not
    readily overcome” and, as such, have “seldom” held that a
    limitation without recitation of “means” is a means-plus-
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                          11
    function limitation. Lighting World, 
    382 F.3d at 1358, 1362
    ; Inventio, 
    649 F.3d at 1356
    ; see also Flo Healthcare,
    697 F.3d at 1374 (“When the claim drafter has not sig-
    naled his intent to invoke § 112, ¶ 6 by using the term
    ‘means,’ we are unwilling to apply that provision without
    a showing that the limitation essentially is devoid of
    anything that can be construed as structure.”).
    The Dissent suggests that choosing to include “means”
    in a claim limitation is a “minor drafting decision” that
    correspondingly merits little weight in a Section 112, ¶6
    analysis. Dissent at 7. We disagree. The strong pre-
    sumption created by not including means in a claim
    limitation provides clarity and predictability for the
    public and the patentee alike. It helps the public deter-
    mine when claim elements are expressly limited to struc-
    tures disclosed in the specification (or their equivalents)
    and provides the patentee with the tools for reliably
    invoking or avoiding means-plus-function claiming. It
    also signals to the court that the patentee has chosen to
    avail, or avoid, the benefits of Section 112, ¶6. We recog-
    nize that the choice to draft a claim in “broad structural
    terms” rather than in a means-plus-function format may
    render the claim more vulnerable to an invalidity attack.
    Id. Whether to draft a claim in broad structural terms is
    the claim drafter’s choice, and any resulting risk that
    emanates from that choice is not a basis for the court to
    rewrite a claim in means-plus-function format. See id.
    By focusing on the claim terms the patentee chose, this
    presumption also reaffirms the primacy of the claim
    language during claim construction, as outlined in Phil-
    lips v. AWH Corp. 
    415 F.3d 1303
     (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here,
    as in all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the
    game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 
    150 F.3d 1362
    , 1369
    (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of
    Protection and Interpretation of Claims–American Per-
    spectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497,
    499 (1990)).
    12                             APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    In this case, Motorola bears the burden of overcoming
    the presumption that Section 112, ¶6 does not apply by a
    preponderance of the evidence. See Apex Inc. v. Raritan
    Computer, Inc., 
    325 F.3d 1364
    , 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The
    district court made several erroneous findings that led it
    to incorrectly conclude that Motorola rebutted this strong
    presumption. The district court misapplied our precedent
    by requiring the claim limitations of the ’949 patent
    themselves to disclose “a step-by-step algorithm as re-
    quired by Aristocrat Technologies.” Aristocrat and related
    cases hold that, if a patentee has invoked computer-
    implemented means-plus-function claiming, the corre-
    sponding structure in the specification for the computer
    implemented function must be an algorithm unless a
    general purpose computer is sufficient for performing the
    function. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game
    Tech., 
    521 F.3d 1328
    , 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (requiring
    disclosure of an algorithm when it is not disputed that
    claims were drafted in means-plus-function format); WMS
    Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 
    184 F.3d 1339
    , 1349
    (Fed. Cir. 1999) (same); ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software,
    Inc., 
    700 F.3d 509
    , 518 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Typhoon Touch
    Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 
    659 F.3d 1376
    , 1385 (Fed. Cir.
    2011). But see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
    Patent Litig., 
    639 F.3d 1303
    , 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (find-
    ing that disclosure of a general purpose computer is
    sufficient corresponding structure for means-plus-function
    claims).
    In all these cases, the claims recited the term
    “means,” thereby expressly invoking means-plus-function
    claiming. In addition, the parties in these cases did not
    dispute on appeal that these claims were drafted in
    means-plus-function format. Hence, where a claim is not
    drafted in means-plus-function format, the reasoning in
    the Aristocrat line of cases does not automatically apply,
    and an algorithm is therefore not necessarily required.
    The correct inquiry, when “means” is absent from a limi-
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           13
    tation, is whether the limitation, read in light of the
    remaining claim language, specification, prosecution
    history, and relevant extrinsic evidence, has sufficiently
    definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
    Here, the answer is yes.
    “Structure” to a person of ordinary skill in the art of
    computer-implemented inventions may differ from more
    traditional, mechanical structure. For example, looking
    for traditional “physical structure” in a computer software
    claim is fruitless because software does not contain physi-
    cal structures. Indeed, the typical physical structure that
    implements software, a computer, cannot be relied upon
    to provide sufficiently definite structure for a software
    claim lacking “means.” Rather, to one of skill in the art,
    the “structure” of computer software is understood
    through, for example, an outline of an algorithm, a
    flowchart, or a specific set of instructions or rules. See,
    e.g., Typhoon Touch, 
    659 F.3d at 1385
     (“[T]he patent need
    only disclose sufficient structure for a person of skill in
    the field to provide an operative software program for the
    specified function.”); Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
    
    523 F.3d 1323
    , 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 1 Requiring tradi-
    tional physical structure in software limitations lacking
    the term means would result in all of these limitations
    being construed as means-plus-function limitations and
    subsequently being found indefinite.
    1    We cite these cases as examples of “structure” to a
    person ordinarily skilled in the art of computer software.
    We do not cite these cases for the principle that we must
    review the specification, prosecution history, and relevant
    external evidence when deciding if a claim limitation
    connotes structure. See Dissent at fn. 2. As discussed
    herein, there is ample support for that proposition else-
    where. See, e.g., Inventio, 
    649 F.3d at 1356-57
    .
    14                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    A limitation has sufficient structure when it recites a
    claim term with a structural definition that is either
    provided in the specification or generally known in the
    art. See, e.g., Flo Healthcare, 697 F.3d at 1374 (“We will
    not apply § 112, ¶ 6 if the limitation contains a term that
    ‘is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the
    pertinent art to designate structure.’”) (quoting Lighting
    World, 
    382 F.3d at 1359
    ); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at
    704-05. In Personalized Media, we found that the claim
    term “detector,” by itself, connoted sufficient structure to
    a person of ordinary skill in the art. 161 F.3d at 704-05
    (agreeing with ALJ that “‘detector’ had a well-known
    meaning to those of skill in the electrical arts connotative
    of structure”). There, we contrasted the structural term
    “detector” with generic, non-structural, terms such as
    “means,” “element,” and “device.” Id. at 705; see also
    Apex, 
    325 F.3d at 1373
     (finding that the term “circuit,”
    coupled with identifiers such as “interface,” “program-
    ming,” and “logic,” connoted sufficient structure to a
    person of ordinary skill in the art).
    Structure may also be provided by describing the
    claim limitation’s operation, such as its input, output, or
    connections. The limitation’s operation is more than just
    its function; it is how the function is achieved in the
    context of the invention. For example, in Linear, we
    found that the claim term “circuit” has a known structural
    definition and that the patent described the circuit’s
    operation, including its input, output, and objective. 
    379 F.3d at 1320-21
    . Similarly, in Lighting World, we found
    that “connector” had a known structural definition and
    that the specification described its operational require-
    ments, including which claim elements it was connected
    to and how they were connected. 
    382 F.3d at 1361-63
    . In
    both cases, we found the presumption against means-
    plus-function claiming was unrebutted.
    Even if a patentee elects to use a “generic” claim term,
    such as “a nonce word or a verbal construct,” properly
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           15
    construing that term (in view of the specification, prosecu-
    tion history, etc.) may still provide sufficient structure
    such that the presumption against means-plus-function
    claiming remains intact. 
    Id. at 1360
    ; see also Inventio,
    
    649 F.3d at 1356-57
     (“Claims are interpreted in light of
    the written description supporting them, and that is true
    whether or not the claim construction involves interpret-
    ing a ‘means’ clause.”); MIT, 
    462 F.3d at 1354
     (“The
    generic terms ‘mechanism,’ ‘means,’ ‘element,’ and ‘de-
    vice,’ typically do not connote sufficiently definite struc-
    ture.”). For example, in Inventio, the claim included the
    generic term “device.” 
    649 F.3d at 1354
     (reciting “at least
    one modernizing device and connecting the at least one
    modernizing device to said floor terminals and said at
    least one computing unit.”) (emphasis added). However,
    the specification described the modernizing device’s input,
    output, internal components, and how the internal com-
    ponents were interconnected. 
    Id. at 1358-59
    . As such,
    the presumption against means-plus-function treatment
    was not overcome. See also Flo Healthcare, 697 F.3d at
    1374-75 (noting that “mechanism” is a generic term, but
    then looking to remaining claim language and written
    description before finding that the full claim limitation
    connoted structure). These cases teach that, if a limita-
    tion recites a term with a known structural meaning, or
    recites either a known or generic term with a sufficient
    description of its operation, the presumption against
    means-plus-function claiming remains intact.
    The limitation need not connote a single, specific
    structure; rather, it may describe a class of structures.
    See, e.g., Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l
    Trade Comm’n, 
    161 F.3d 696
    , 705 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Even
    though the term ‘detector’ does not specifically evoke a
    particular structure, it does convey to one knowledgeable
    in the art a variety of structures known as ‘detectors.’”);
    Flo Healthcare, 697 F.3d at 1374-75 (finding that claim
    term “height adjustment mechanism” designates “a class
    16                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    of structures that are generally understood to persons of
    skill in the art”). Indeed, even if the patent describes all
    structures that perform the recited function, this, by
    itself, does not overcome the strong presumption that
    means-plus-function claiming does not apply when the
    term “means” is not recited in the claim. Lighting World,
    
    382 F.3d at 1361-62
    .
    By contrast, if the claim merely recites a generic
    nonce word and the remaining claim language, specifica-
    tion, prosecution history, and relevant external evidence
    provide no further structural description to a person of
    ordinary skill in the art, then the presumption against
    means-plus-function claiming is rebutted. In MIT, for
    example, the claims recited a “colorant selection mecha-
    nism.” 
    462 F.3d at 1353
    . As noted, “mechanism” by itself
    does not connote sufficient structure, and the term “color-
    ant selection” was not defined in the specification or
    otherwise known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
    
    Id. at 1353-55
    . Further, the patentee used the terms
    “mechanism” and “means” interchangeably in the specifi-
    cation. 
    Id. at 1354
    ; see also Mas-Hamilton Grp. v.
    LaGard Inc., 
    156 F.3d 1206
    , 1214-16 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
    (claim recited “element” and “member” and patent provid-
    ed no further structural description of these generic
    terms); Welker Bearing, 
    550 F.3d at 1096-97
     (claim recited
    a “mechanism” without further structure described in
    specification). Thus, if a claim recites a generic term that,
    properly construed in light of the specification, lacks
    sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill
    in the art, the presumption is overcome and the patentee
    has invoked means-plus-function claiming.
    With this precedent in mind, we turn to the claim lim-
    itations at issue in the ’949 patent. We find that “heuris-
    tic” has a known meaning and the ’949 patent also
    describes the limitation’s operation, including its input,
    output, and how its output may be achieved. Accordingly,
    the heuristic claim limitations recited above have “suffi-
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             17
    ciently definite structure,” to a person of ordinary skill in
    the art, for performing the recited functions.
    Broadly speaking, the function of the recited limita-
    tions is to identify a command based upon particular
    finger contacts. To achieve this function, the patent
    describes “heuristics.” Depending upon the circumstanc-
    es, heuristic is not necessarily a generic, structureless
    “nonce word or a verbal construct” without any meaning,
    such as “mechanism,” “means,” “element,” or “widget.”
    The district court correctly determined that a person of
    ordinary skill in the art would understand “heuristic” to
    mean “one or more rules to be applied to data to assist in
    drawing inferences from that data.” In this sense, “heu-
    ristic” is similar to words that define a class of structures,
    such as “connector,” “circuit,” and “detector,” and it does
    not include all means for performing the recited function.
    See, e.g., Flo Healthcare, 697 F.3d at 1374 (“We will not
    apply § 112, ¶ 6 if the limitation contains a term that ‘is
    used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the
    pertinent art to designate structure’”) (quoting Lighting
    World, 
    382 F.3d at 1359
    ); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at
    704-05. The fact that heuristic is defined partly in terms
    of its function does not detract “from the definiteness of
    [the] structure” it may connote. Personalized Media, 161
    F.3d at 703-05. Indeed, “many devices take their names
    from the functions they perform.” Greenberg v. Ethicon
    Endo-Surgery, Inc., 
    91 F.3d 1580
    , 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
    see also MIT, 
    462 F.3d at 1354
    ; Lighting World, 
    382 F.3d at 1359-60
    .
    We need not decide here whether the term “heuristic,”
    by itself, connotes sufficient structure to maintain the
    presumption against means-plus-function claiming be-
    cause, in this case, the claims do not nakedly recite heu-
    ristics without further description in the remaining claim
    language and specification. To the contrary, the claim
    language and specification disclose the heuristics’ opera-
    18                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    tion within the context of the invention, including the
    inputs, outputs, and how certain outputs are achieved.
    In all cases, the claimed input is a finger contact. The
    specification explains that the finger contacts may be
    taps, swipes, double taps, or finger rolling, and may
    involve one or two fingers contacting the screen at differ-
    ent initial angles. See, e.g., ’949 Patent at col. 19, ll. 30-
    46; col. 65, ll. 21-24; col. 66, ll. 47-51. The claims recite
    heuristics with varying objectives, including vertical
    screen scrolling, two-dimensional screen translation,
    moving to the next item in a list, and translating content
    within a frame. The claims also explain that the inven-
    tion differentiates between vertical scrolling and two-
    dimensional translation based upon the angle of initial
    movement of the finger contact.
    The written description provides further details re-
    garding the heuristics’ inputs and outputs. Regarding
    one-dimensional vertical screen scrolling, the specification
    explains that “in response to an upward swipe gesture
    3937 by the user that is within a predetermined angle
    (e.g., 27º) of being perfectly vertical, the web page may
    scroll one-dimensionally upward in the vertical direc-
    tion.” ’949 Patent at col. 64, ll. 21-25. Regarding two-
    dimensional translation, the specification discloses that
    “in response to an upward swipe gesture 3939 (FIG. 39C)
    by the user that is not within a predetermined angle (e.g.,
    27º) of being perfectly vertical, the web page may scroll
    two-dimensionally along the direction of the swipe.” 
    Id.
     at
    col. 64, ll. 30-34.       The specification defines two-
    dimensional movement as “simultaneous movement in
    both the vertical and horizontal directions.” 
    Id.
     The
    specification explains how a user can move to the next
    item in a list via a finger tap gesture on the right side of
    the screen, a right-to-left finger swipe, or by tapping a
    next image icon. 
    Id.
     at col. 30, ll. 42-67.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            19
    The specification also discusses the structure behind
    translating “content within a frame rather than translat-
    ing the entire page that includes the frame.” 
    Id.
     at col.
    123, ll. 6-8. For performing this function, the specification
    describes an “M-finger translation gesture 4214,” where
    M is a number different from the number of fingers used
    to translate the entire page. 
    Id.
     at col. 75, ll. 18-26. The
    specification also explains that the direction of translation
    may be the direction of the “movement of the M-finger
    translation gesture.” 
    Id.
     at col. 75, ll. 34-35. Alternative-
    ly, the direction of translation may be determined by the
    angle of the movement of the M-finger gesture, according
    to a particular rule, i.e. a specific, identifying heuristic.
    
    Id.
     at col. 75, ll. 39-44.
    The figures in the ’949 patent provide further struc-
    tural details. Figs. 12A, 39C, 42A, 42B, and 42C illus-
    trate the finger contacts described in the specification
    that result in vertical scrolling (3937), two-dimensional
    translation (3939), turning to the next item (1218, 1220,
    and 1212), or translating within a frame (4214).
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           21
    number of fingers making contact, the direction of move-
    ment of a finger contact, a specific swiping gesture, taping
    a certain location on the screen, or the angle of movement
    of a finger on the screen. See Welker Bearing, 
    550 F.3d at 1096-97
    ; Inventio, 
    649 F.3d at 1359
     (“This is not a case
    where a claim nakedly recites a ‘device’ and the written
    description fails to place clear structural limitations on
    the ‘device.’”). Thus, the ’949 patent recites a claim term
    with a known meaning and also describes its operation,
    including its input, output, and how its output may be
    achieved.
    Accordingly, the heuristic claim limitations provide
    “sufficiently definite structure,” to a person of ordinary
    skill in the art, for performing the recited function, and
    Motorola has not rebutted the strong presumption against
    means-plus-function claiming. We reverse the district
    court’s construction that the “heuristic” claim limitations
    were drafted in means-plus-function format and vacate its
    summary judgment of non-infringement.
    Apple’s ’647 Patent
    Regarding Apple’s ’647 patent, the parties dispute the
    meaning of the claim terms “analyzer server” and “linking
    actions to the detected structures.” The district court
    construed “analyzer server” as “a server routine separate
    from a client that receives data having structures from
    the client” and “linking actions to the detected structures”
    as “creating a specified connection between each detected
    structure and at least one computer subroutine that
    causes the CPU to perform a sequence of operations on
    that detected structure.” Apple argues that both con-
    structions are erroneous. We disagree with Apple and
    affirm the district court’s claim construction.
    The ’647 patent discloses a system for recognizing cer-
    tain structures (such as a telephone number) on a
    touchscreen and then linking certain actions (such as
    calling the telephone number) to the structure. For
    22                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    example, a user may be able to call or save a phone num-
    ber it has received via text message or email simply by
    touching the number on the screen of its device. Claim 1
    of the ’647 patent, with relevant claim limitations empha-
    sized, recites:
    A computer-based system for detecting structures
    in data and performing actions on detected struc-
    tures, comprising:
    an input device for receiving data;
    an output device for presenting the data;
    a memory storing information including program
    routines including an analyzer server for detecting
    structures in the data, and for linking actions to
    the detected structures;
    a user interface enabling the selection of a detect-
    ed structure and a linked action;
    and an action processor for performing the select-
    ed action linked to the selected structure; and a
    processing unit coupled to the input device, the
    output device, and the memory for controlling the
    execution of the program routines.
    ’647 patent at col. 7, ll. 9-24 (emphasis added). The
    district court agreed with Motorola that “analyzer server”
    should be construed as “a server routine separate from a
    client that receives data having structures from the
    client.” Apple argues that the analyzer server need not be
    “separate from a client.” Instead, Apple argues that
    “analyzer server” should be construed as “a program
    routine(s) that receives data, uses patterns to detect
    structures in the data, and links actions to the detected
    structures.”
    We agree with the district court’s construction of “an-
    alyzer server.” As the district court recognized, the plain
    meaning of “server,” when viewed from the perspective of
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             23
    a person of ordinary skill in the art, entails a client-server
    relationship. Consistent with this perspective, the speci-
    fication discloses an analyzer server that is separate from
    the application it serves. The analyzer server is part of
    the “program 165 of the present invention.” ’647 patent at
    col. 3, ll. 38-39. Fig. 1 shows the program 165 and the
    application 167 as separate parts of a random-access
    memory (RAM):
    
    Id.
     at Fig. 1. Further, the specification states that “the
    program 165 of the present invention is stored in RAM
    170 and causes CPU 120 to identify structures in data
    presented by the application 167.” 
    Id.
     at col. 3, ll. 37-41.
    Thus, the specification describes the analyzer server and
    the application, which it serves, as separate structures.
    Apple does not point to evidence suggesting a differ-
    ent ordinary meaning, nor do we discern such evidence in
    the record before this court. Indeed, Apple’s proposed
    construction contradicts the claim language because it
    reads “analyzer server” out of the claim. The claim recites
    “routines including an analyzer server for detecting struc-
    tures in the data, and for linking actions to the detected
    structures.” Apple’s proposed construction recites pro-
    gram routines that detect structures and links actions to
    the detected structures, without any mention of “analyzer
    servers.” Apple’s construction essentially takes the claim
    text and removes the “analyzer server,” leaving the rest
    24                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    basically unchanged. Thus, Apple’s construction conflicts
    with the claim language by ignoring the claim term
    “server.” See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA,
    Inc., 
    395 F.3d 1364
    , 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim con-
    struction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim
    is preferred over one that does not do so.”); Pause Tech.,
    LLC v. TiVo, Inc., 
    419 F.3d 1326
    , 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
    (“In construing claims, however, we must give each claim
    term the respect that it is due.”); Strattec Sec. Corp. v.
    Gen. Auto. Specialty Co., 
    126 F.3d 1411
    , 1417 (Fed. Cir.
    1997) (holding that it was legal error for the district court
    to instruct the jury that the claim term “sheet” was not
    properly considered part of the claim); Exxon Chem.
    Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 
    64 F.3d 1553
    , 1557 (Fed.
    Cir. 1995) (“We must give meaning to all the words in
    Exxon's claims.”). By contrast, the district court’s con-
    struction comports with the ordinary meaning of “server”
    and is supported by the specification. Accordingly, we
    affirm the district court’s construction of “analyzer serv-
    er.”
    The district court also agreed with Motorola that
    “linking actions to the detected structures” should be
    construed as “creating a specified connection between
    each detected structure and at least one computer subrou-
    tine that causes the CPU to perform a sequence of opera-
    tions on that detected structure.” Apple argues that the
    district court’s construction is erroneous for two reasons.
    First, the district court incorrectly added the “specified
    connection” limitation. Second, the claims require link-
    ing multiple actions to each structure, rather than “at
    least one.” Apple contends that the correct construction is
    “associating detected structures to computer subroutines
    that cause the CPU to perform a sequence of operations
    on the particular structure to which they are associated.”
    We agree with the district court. Apple argues that
    the claims require only “associating” between the struc-
    ture and the subroutines but ignores that the claims
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                                25
    recite “linking.” From a general sense, the plain meaning
    of associating relates to a mere commonality, while link-
    ing infers a joining. Additionally, the specification here
    demonstrates that linking is more than just associating.
    The patent consistently differentiates between associating
    and linking and implies that linking is a more specific
    connection than merely associating. For example, the
    specification explains that actions are “associated” with
    specific “grammars” or “patterns,” and that “linking”
    occurs only after these grammars or patterns are “detect-
    ed.” See, e.g., ’647 patent at col. 5, ll. 59-61 (“upon detec-
    tion of a structure based on a particular pattern, actions
    associated with the particular pattern are linked 825 to
    the detected structure”); col. 7, ll. 38-39 (“wherein the
    analyzer server links to a detected structure the actions
    associated with the grammar”); col. 3, ll. 65-67 (“analyzer
    server 220 links actions associated with the responsible
    pattern to the detected structure, using conventional
    pointers”); col. 5, ll. 31-33 (“analyzer server 220 links the
    actions associated with grammars 410 and strings 420 to
    these identified structures”) (emphases added).
    Apple argues that requiring a “specified connection”
    limits the claims to the use of the “pointers” described in
    the specification. The district court explained that a
    pointer is “a term of art in computer engineering” that
    “stores a computer memory address.” The specification
    explains that pointers may be used to link the associated
    actions to the detected structures. ’647 patent at col. 3, ll.
    65-67 (“upon detection of a structure, analyzer server
    links actions associated with the responsible pattern to
    the detected structure, using conventional pointers”); col.
    4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 5 (“[U]pon identification of a structure in
    the text, parser links the actions associated with the
    grammar to the identified structure. More particularly,
    parser retrieves from grammar file pointers attached to
    the grammar and attaches the same pointers to the
    identified structure. These pointers direct the system to
    26                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    the associated actions contained in associated actions file.
    Thus, upon selection of the identified structure, user
    interface can locate the linked actions.”).
    Although the district court stated that the specifica-
    tion “makes clear that linking is accomplished through
    pointers,” it did not, as Apple argues, actually limit the
    claims to “pointers.” Rather, the court interpreted linking
    to require a “specified connection,” not just a connection
    established with the use of pointers. The specification
    explains that linking may be accomplished through the
    use of pointers but does not require their use and neither
    did the district court. Thus, the district court’s construc-
    tion comports with the specification, including the repeat-
    ed differentiation between linking and associating and the
    pointers embodiment described therein.
    Apple is also incorrect that the claims require each
    structure to be linked with multiple actions. Apple points
    to the claim’s recitation of the plural “actions.” See ’647
    patent at col. 7, ll. 17-18 (“an analyzer server for detecting
    structures in the data, and for linking actions to the
    detected structures”) (emphasis added). The plain lan-
    guage of the claims does not require multiple actions for
    each structure because the claim recites linking multiple
    actions to multiple structures. As such, the plural “ac-
    tions” may be reasonably read as at least one action per
    structure. In fact, Fig. 4 displays an example of the
    invention with only one action linked to a specific struc-
    ture.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           27
    ‘647 patent at Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, the “date grammar”
    structure only has one corresponding action, “put in
    electronic calendar.” This directly contradicts Apple’s
    proposal to require the claims to link multiple actions to
    each structure. ’647 patent at Fig. 4. Accordingly, we
    affirm the district court’s construction of “linking actions
    to the detected structures.”
    Apple’s ’263 Patent
    The ’263 patent discloses a system for processing data
    in “realtime.” The parties dispute whether the “realtime
    application program interface (API)” in claim 1 must itself
    function in realtime or whether it must just facilitate
    realtime processing by other subsystems. The district
    court concluded that the API need just facilitate realtime
    processing and construed “realtime API” as an “API that
    allows realtime interaction between two or more subsys-
    tems.” Motorola argues that this construction reads
    “realtime” out of the claim. We disagree and affirm the
    district court’s construction.
    Claim 1, with the relevant limitation emphasized, re-
    cites:
    28                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    A signal processing system for providing a plurali-
    ty of realtime services to and from a number of
    independent client applications and devices, said
    system comprising:
    a subsystem comprising a host central processing
    unit (CPU) operating in accordance with at least
    one application program and a device handler
    program, said subsystem further comprising an
    adapter subsystem interoperating with said host
    CPU and said device;
    a realtime signal processing subsystem for per-
    forming a plurality of data transforms comprising
    a plurality of realtime signal processing opera-
    tions; and
    at least one realtime application program inter-
    face (API) coupled between the subsystem and the
    realtime signal processing subsystem to allow the
    subsystem to interoperate with said realtime ser-
    vices.
    ’263 patent at col. 11, ll. 28-43 (emphasis added). The
    district court noted that, generally, to be realtime, a
    system “must satisfy explicitly (bounded) response-time
    constraints or risk severe consequences,” such as degrad-
    ed performance.
    Motorola contends that the district court’s construc-
    tion reads “realtime” out of the claim because it does not
    require the API itself to function in realtime. Motorola
    points to independent claim 31, which recites an API
    without the “realtime” qualifier, and argues that, by
    including realtime in claim 1, the patentee intended that
    the API itself operate in realtime. See Phillips, 415 F.3d
    at 1314 (finding that use of the word “steel” in the term
    “steel baffles” “strongly implies” a difference between
    steel baffles and non-steel baffles).
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           29
    We agree with the district court. The specification
    describes the API as an interface that sends commands
    and parameters to the “real-time engine,” which actually
    performs the realtime data processing. The specification
    does not describe the API itself as meeting any specific
    response-time constraints or otherwise needing realtime
    functionality. Instead, the API’s role is to send commands
    and parameters to the real-time engine. See, e.g., ’263
    patent at col. 6, ll. 33-38 (“each interface receives com-
    mands from an application program, through the handler
    44, and instructs the real-time engine to carry out the
    necessary transforms”); col. 5, ll. 22-25 (“the particular
    transforms to be performed are sent as commands to the
    real-time engine from the adapter handler 44 via suitable
    application programming interfaces 48”); col. 10, ll. 40-44
    (“in response thereto, the API 48 which receives these
    commands supplies the real-time engine with the appro-
    priate parameters for performing the transforms in the
    required format”). By contrast, the real-time engine is
    described as performing the actual processing, such as
    “text-to-speech conversion” or “video processing.” ’263
    patent at abst. (“a data transmission system having a
    real-time engine for processing isochronous streams of
    data”); col. 10, ll. 16-18 (“the actual modulation and
    demodulation of the hardware interface adapter’s isoch-
    ronous PCM data stream is accomplished entirely by the
    real-time engine”); col. 9, ll. 65-67 (“the handler has no
    involvement with the isochronous data stream created by
    the real-time engine”). Thus, although the API interacts
    with the real-time engine, it is the latter that actually
    performs the time-constrained processing.
    Contrary to Motorola’s argument, the district court
    did not read “realtime” out of the claim. The API is an
    “interface.” As such, it communicates and interacts with
    other subsystems that process data in realtime without
    necessarily processing any data itself. This is what the
    specification describes and what the district court correct-
    30                                    APPLE INC.      v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    ly understood. Further, the district court’s construction
    does not prevent the API from functioning in realtime, it
    just does not require the API to function in realtime. This
    is consistent with the claims and written description,
    which only require the API to facilitate the functionality
    of the real-time engine. We affirm the district court’s
    claim construction.
    Motorola’s ’559 Patent
    Turning to Motorola’s asserted patents, the ’559 pa-
    tent discloses a method for generating “preamble se-
    quences,” which are used in communications between cell
    phones and base stations. The district court construed
    claim 5 of the ’559 patent to require that the third step
    (“multiplying the outer code by the inner code”) take place
    only after the first two steps (“forming an outer code” and
    “forming an inner code”) are completed. Based upon this
    construction, the court granted summary judgment of
    non-infringement to Apple. Motorola appeals only the
    claim construction decision. We affirm.
    Claim 5, with relevant limitations emphasized, re-
    cites:
    A method for generating preamble sequences in a
    CDMA system, the method comprising the steps
    of:
    forming an outer code in a mobile station;
    forming an inner code in the mobile station utiliz-
    ing the following equation:
    𝑀−1
    𝑐𝑐 𝑖 (𝑘𝑘) = � 𝑠𝑠 𝑗 (𝑘𝑘 − 𝑗𝑗 𝑗𝑗)
    𝑗=0
    where sj, j=0,1, . . . , M−1 are a set of orthogonal
    codewords of length P, where M and P are positive
    integers; and
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            31
    multiplying the outer code by the inner code to
    generate a preamble sequence.
    ’559 patent at col. 5, ll. 20-35 (emphasis added).
    Steps in a method claim need not necessarily be per-
    formed in the order they are written. Altiris, Inc. v.
    Symantec Corp., 
    318 F.3d 1363
    , 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). On
    the other hand, if grammar, logic, the specification, or the
    prosecution history require the steps to be performed
    sequentially, then the claims are so limited. Id.; Loral
    Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 
    181 F.3d 1313
    , 1322 (Fed.
    Cir. 1999) (“Although not every process claim is limited to
    the performance of its steps in the order written, the
    language of the claim, the specification and the prosecu-
    tion history support a limiting construction in this case.”).
    The district court correctly noted that, while in a pre-
    ferred embodiment the inner and outer codes are formed
    before the multiplication step begins, this alone does not
    limit the claims. See, e.g., ’559 patent at Fig. 4. The
    district court also acknowledged that the invention would
    likely function even if the multiplication step began before
    the full inner and outer codes were formed. Notwith-
    standing the foregoing, the court construed the claims to
    require that step three occur only after steps one and two
    are completed.
    We agree with the district court. The claims recite
    multiplying “the” inner code with “the” outer code to
    create a preamble “sequence.” Both the inner code and
    outer code are sequences of numbers. The plain meaning
    of multiplying “the” codes together is that the entire
    sequences are multiplied together after they have been
    formed. If claim 17 was directed to a method that multi-
    plied only parts of the inner and outer code together, it
    would not recite multiplying “the” codes together to form
    the preamble sequence. The more natural reading of the
    claim language supports the district court’s finding that
    32                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    the inner and outer codes must be fully formed before
    they are multiplied together.
    The specification supports this reading. When dis-
    cussing multiplying the inner and outer codes, the specifi-
    cation describes forming an inner and outer code and then
    multiplying the codes together:
    The present invention provides a method for gen-
    erating preamble sequences in a CDMA communi-
    cation system. The method comprises forming an
    outer code and an inner code at a mobile station.
    The mobile station then multiplies the outer code
    by the inner code to generate a preamble se-
    quence.
    ’559 patent at col. 2, ll. 52-57 (emphasis added).
    Because it is supported by the plain meaning of the
    claim language and the specification, we affirm the dis-
    trict court’s claim construction.
    Because this construction was the basis for the dis-
    trict court’s grant of summary judgment of non-
    infringement, we need not reach the court’s construction
    of “a set of orthogonal codewords.” Accordingly, we affirm
    the district court’s grant of Apple’s motion for summary
    judgment of non-infringement of the ’559 patent based
    upon its construction that the steps of claim 17 be per-
    formed in the sequence described above.
    Motorola’s ’712 patent
    The ’712 patent discloses a system for encrypting data
    communications.      The district court found that the
    claimed “transmit overflow sequence number,” or TOSN,
    is “never transmitted” to the receiver in the claimed
    system. Because the counterpart to the TOSN in the
    accused products is transmitted to the receiver, the dis-
    trict court granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment
    of non-infringement. We agree with the district court’s
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                              33
    construction and therefore affirm its grant of summary
    judgment.
    Claim 17 of the ’712 patent, with relevant limitations
    emphasized, recites:
    In a communication system having a physical lay-
    er, data link layer, and a network layer, a method
    for providing cryptographic protection of a data
    stream, comprising:
    (a) assigning a packet sequence number to a pack-
    et derived from a data stream received from the
    network layer;
    (b) updating a transmit overflow sequence number
    as a function of the packet sequence number; and
    (c) encrypting, prior to communicating the packet
    and the packet sequence number on the physical
    layer, the packet as a function of the packet se-
    quence number and the transmit overflow se-
    quence number.
    ’712 patent at col. 8, l. 65 - col. 9, l. 12. The specification
    explains that, in order to encrypt and decrypt the data
    being transmitted, the invention assigns each “packet” of
    data both a “packet sequence number” and an overflow
    number. See 
    id.
     at abst; col. 5, ll. 13-15.
    34                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    The “key” used to encrypt and decrypt the data in-
    cludes both the packet sequence number and the overflow
    number. The packet sequence numbers are assigned
    sequentially up to a maximum. Once the maximum is
    reached, the packet sequence number count “rolls over”
    and begins again from number one. For example, if the
    maximum is 128, after 128 is assigned to a packet of data,
    the next packet is assigned a packet sequence number of
    one. 
    Id.
     at col. 4, ll. 15-17. The overflow counter counts
    the number of times the packet sequence number rolls
    over. 
    Id.
     at col. 3, ll. 54-55, 65-68. Thus, as demonstrated
    in the above illustration, each time the packet sequence
    number rolls over, the overflow sequence number increas-
    es by one. 
    Id.
    On the transmission side, the overflow number is
    called the TOSN. On the receiving side, it is called the
    receiving overflow sequence number (“ROSN”). In this
    manner, the key to encrypt and decrypt the data includes
    both a packet sequence number and an overflow number.
    When the packets of data are transmitted, the claimed
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             35
    system also transmits the packet sequence number. 
    Id.
     at
    col. 5, ll. 29-32; col. 9, ll. 7-9. The specification does not
    describe transmitting the TOSN or any other overflow
    number. 
    Id.
     Instead, the receiver couples the packet
    sequence number it receives with a ROSN it generates
    and uses these two numbers to decrypt the data packet.
    The specification supports the district court’s con-
    struction that the TOSN is never transmitted. First, the
    claims recite a TOSN, not a generic overflow sequence
    number. The specification plainly describes transmitting
    certain aspects of the system (the data packet, the packet
    sequence number) but never suggests that the TOSN is
    part of that transmission. Nor is it necessary for the
    TOSN to be transmitted. If it were, there would be no
    need for the receiver to generate a ROSN. Further, if
    both the TOSN and packet sequence number were trans-
    mitted, an eavesdropper could intercept the entire key
    needed to decrypt the message. This would defeat the
    invention’s purpose of providing increased security by not
    transmitting the entire key.
    Statements made by Motorola during prosecution of a
    related Japanese patent further support this construction.
    Before the Japan Patent Office, Motorola distinguished
    the prior art by explaining, with the included emphasis,
    that “the overflow sequence number is never transmit-
    ted.” Motorola further explained that, because the TOSN
    is never transmitted, “there is no chance to intercept the
    overflow sequence number; thus, [the invention] provides
    a higher level of security.” Motorola made this argument
    on more than one occasion. The Japanese application
    claims priority to the PCT application that issued in the
    United States as the ’712 patent. Both the Japanese
    application and the ’712 patent have the same specifica-
    tion, and the Japanese application included an identical
    claim to claim 17 at the time of Motorola’s statements.
    36                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    Our precedent does not precisely address the impact
    of statements such as Motorola’s here. Motorola’s de-
    scription of the TOSN came after the ’712 patent issued
    and was made in front of a foreign patent office. This
    court has previously found that statements made in
    related, later-prosecuted U.S. patents may inform the
    meaning of earlier issued claims. See, e.g., Microsoft
    Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 
    357 F.3d 1340
    , 1350 (Fed.
    Cir. 2004). In Microsoft, the court noted that “any state-
    ment of the patentee in the prosecution of a related appli-
    cation as to the scope of the invention would be relevant
    to claim construction, and the relevance of the statement
    made in this instance is enhanced by the fact that it was
    made in an official proceeding in which the patentee had
    every incentive to exercise care in characterizing the
    scope of its invention.” 
    Id.
     (emphasis added). Based upon
    this reasoning, the Microsoft court concluded that the
    patentee’s statements made during the prosecution of a
    later patent were relevant to an earlier issued patent that
    shared a common specification. 
    Id.
     Of course, statements
    made in unrelated applications are not relevant to claim
    construction. See, e.g., Goldenberg v. Cytogen, Inc., 
    373 F.3d 1158
    , 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that an
    unrelated patent or application is one that does not “have
    a familial relationship” with the patent at issue); Abbott
    Labs. v. Dey, L.P., 
    287 F.3d 1097
    , 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
    (finding applications unrelated when they had “no formal
    relationship and were presented to the patent office as
    patentably distinct inventions”).
    This court has also considered statements made be-
    fore a foreign patent office when construing claims if they
    are relevant and not related to unique aspects of foreign
    patent law. See, e.g., Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 
    566 F.3d 1282
    , 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“While statements made
    during prosecution of a foreign counterpart to a U.S.
    patent application have a narrow application to U.S.
    claim construction . . . in this case the JP ’199 application
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             37
    is part of the prosecution history of the ’507 patent itself”)
    (internal citations omitted); Gillette Co. v. Energizer
    Holdings, Inc., 
    405 F.3d 1367
    , 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
    (considering the patentee’s arguments before the Europe-
    an Patent Office (EPO) and concluding that a “blatant
    admission by this same defendant before the EPO clearly
    support[ed]” the court’s construction); Tanabe Seiyaku
    Co., v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 
    109 F.3d 726
    , 733 (Fed.
    Cir. 1997); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Berco, S.p.A., 
    714 F.2d 1110
    , 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1983). But see AIA Eng’g Ltd.
    v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 
    657 F.3d 1264
    , 1279 (Fed. Cir.
    2011) (“[O]ur precedent cautions against indiscriminate
    reliance on the prosecution of corresponding foreign
    applications in the claim construction analysis.”); Pfizer,
    Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 
    457 F.3d 1284
    , 1290 (Fed. Cir.
    2006) (“[S]tatements made during prosecution of foreign
    counterparts to the ‘893 patent are irrelevant to claim
    construction because they were made in response to
    patentability requirements unique to Danish and Europe-
    an law.”).
    The principles illustrated in these decisions provide
    ample support for holding Motorola to the statements
    made during Japanese prosecution. Motorola’s state-
    ments that the TOSN “is never transmitted” to the receiv-
    er could not be clearer. See Gillette, 
    405 F.3d at 1374
    (holding party to “blatant admission” in argument made
    to EPO). Motorola also explained, more than once, that
    not transmitting the TOSN improves the security of the
    claimed system. This explanation is consistent with the
    claims and the invention described in the specification.
    See AIA, 
    657 F.3d at 1279
     (noting concerns regarding
    differences in foreign patent law). Thus, as in Microsoft,
    the statements were “made in an official proceeding in
    which the patentee had every incentive to exercise care in
    characterizing the scope of its invention.” 
    357 F.3d at 1350
    . Further, the two patents are related and share a
    familial relationship. They both claim priority to the
    38                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    same PCT application. Both specifications are the same.
    And, at the time Motorola made its statements to the
    Japanese patent office, the Japanese application con-
    tained a claim identical to claim 17. Thus, the construc-
    tion supported by the specification is also supported by
    Motorola’s statements before the Japan patent office. We
    hold that it was not error for the district court to rely
    upon Motorola’s statements to the Japan Patent Office.
    As such, we affirm the district court’s construction.
    The district court granted Apple’s motion for sum-
    mary judgment of non-infringement based upon its con-
    struction of claim 17. On appeal, Motorola does not
    dispute that Apple does not infringe under this construc-
    tion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
    summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’712 pa-
    tent.
    ADMISSIBILITY OF DAMAGES EXPERT EVIDENCE
    In preparation for trial on the patent infringement
    claims still at issue, the parties presented expert testimo-
    ny supporting their damages calculations. Both parties
    challenged the admissibility of the other side’s expert
    evidence. The district court held a Daubert hearing at
    which the experts testified and the parties presented oral
    arguments regarding admissibility. Subsequently, the
    district court excluded nearly all of both parties’ expert
    evidence relating to damages for infringement. Not all of
    these decisions are before us. On appeal, Apple argues
    that the proposed testimony of its damages expert regard-
    ing the ’949 and ’263 patents is admissible. Motorola
    argues that the proposed testimony of its damages expert
    for the ’898 patent is admissible. Because the district
    court erred in its decision to exclude the parties’ expert
    evidence, we reverse.
    The legal framework for admission of expert testimo-
    ny is provided by the Federal Rules of Evidence, along
    with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 
    509 U.S. 579
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             39
    (1993) and its progeny. See FED. R. EVID. 702, 703. In
    Daubert, the Court addressed the proper standard for
    admitting expert testimony and emphasized that the
    focus “must be solely on principles and methodology, not
    on the conclusions that they generate.” 
    509 U.S. at 595
    .
    In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 
    526 U.S. 137
     (1999),
    the Court clarified that the district court’s “gatekeeping
    obligation” applied to all expert testimony. 
    526 U.S. at 147
    . Subsequently, “Rule 702 was amended in response
    to Daubert and cases applying it, including Kumho Tire.”
    Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 
    317 F.3d 1387
    , 1391
    (Fed. Cir. 2003).
    Rule 702 states:
    A witness who is qualified as an expert by
    knowledge, skill, experience, training, or educa-
    tion may testify in the form of an opinion or oth-
    erwise if:
    (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other spe-
    cialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
    understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
    issue;
    (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or da-
    ta;
    (c) the testimony is the product of reliable princi-
    ples and methods; and
    (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles
    and methods to the facts of the case.
    FED. R. EVID. 702. Rule 703 states:
    An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in
    the case that the expert has been made aware of
    or personally observed. If experts in the particular
    field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts
    or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they
    need not be admissible for the opinion to be ad-
    40                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    mitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be
    inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may
    disclose them to the jury only if their probative
    value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion
    substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
    FED. R. EVID. 703.
    Under these rules and precedent, a district court
    judge, acting as a gatekeeper, may exclude evidence if it is
    based upon unreliable principles or methods, or legally
    insufficient facts and data. See, e.g., Smith v. Ford Motor
    Co., 
    215 F.3d 713
    , 718 (7th Cir. 2000) (“We emphasize
    that the court’s gatekeeping function focuses on an exam-
    ination of the expert’s methodology.”); Daubert, 
    509 U.S. at 595
     (“The focus, of course, must be solely on principles
    and methodology, not on the conclusions that they gener-
    ate.”); i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 
    598 F.3d 831
    , 854 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (stating that “Daubert and Rule
    702 are safeguards against unreliable or irrelevant opin-
    ions, not guarantees of correctness”) (applying Fifth
    Circuit law); Walker v. Soo Line R. Co., 
    208 F.3d 581
    , 587
    (7th Cir. 2000) (“The critical point is that Dr. Pliskin
    employed a proper methodology to determine Mr. Walk-
    er’s pre-incident IQ.”).
    A judge must be cautious not to overstep its gatekeep-
    ing role and weigh facts, evaluate the correctness of
    conclusions, impose its own preferred methodology, or
    judge credibility, including the credibility of one expert
    over another. These tasks are solely reserved for the fact
    finder. See, e.g., Smith, 
    215 F.3d at 718
     (“The soundness
    of the factual underpinnings of the expert’s analysis and
    the correctness of the expert’s conclusions based on that
    analysis are factual matters to be determined by the trier
    of fact.”); Stollings v. Ryobi Techs., Inc., 
    725 F.3d 753
    , 766
    (7th Cir. 2013) (“An expert may provide expert testimony
    based on a valid and properly applied methodology and
    still offer a conclusion that is subject to doubt. It is the
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            41
    role of the jury to weigh these sources of doubt.”). As the
    Seventh Circuit noted in Stollings, “the jury must still be
    allowed to play its essential role as the arbiter of the
    weight and credibility of expert testimony.” 725 F.3d at
    765; see also Lees v. Carthage Coll., 
    714 F.3d 516
    , 526 (7th
    Cir. 2013).
    That the gatekeeping role of the judge is limited to ex-
    cluding testimony based on unreliable principles and
    methods is particularly essential in the context of patent
    damages. This court has recognized that questions re-
    garding which facts are most relevant or reliable to calcu-
    lating a reasonable royalty are “for the jury.” i4i, 
    598 F.3d at 856
     (“When the methodology is sound, and the
    evidence relied upon sufficiently related to the case at
    hand, disputes about the degree of relevance or accuracy
    (above this minimum threshold) may go to the testimony’s
    weight, but not its admissibility.”); see also Micro Chemi-
    cal, 
    317 F.3d at 1392
    .
    This court has also recognized that estimating a “rea-
    sonable royalty” is not an exact science. As such, the
    record may support a range of “reasonable” royalties,
    rather than a single value. Likewise, there may be more
    than one reliable method for estimating a reasonable
    royalty. See, e.g., In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent
    Litig., MDL 2303, 
    2013 WL 5593609
    , at *30-*40 (N.D. Ill.
    Oct. 3, 2013) (undertaking a detailed evaluation of the
    different methods proposed by the parties of valuing the
    patents at issue). For example, a party may use the
    royalty rate from sufficiently comparable licenses, value
    the infringed features based upon comparable features in
    the marketplace, or estimate the value of the benefit
    provided by the infringed features by a comparing the
    accused product to non-infringing alternatives. All ap-
    proaches have certain strengths and weaknesses and,
    depending upon the facts, one or all may produce admis-
    sible testimony in a single case. It is common for parties
    to choose different, reliable approaches in a single case
    42                             APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    and, when they do, the relative strengths and weaknesses
    may be exposed at trial or attacked during cross-
    examination. That one approach may better account for
    one aspect of a royalty estimation does not make other
    approaches inadmissible. For example, actual royalties
    paid for technologies similar to the claims at issue may
    inherently account for available, non-infringing alterna-
    tives. On the other hand, an analytical comparison of the
    same non-infringing alternatives to the claims may more
    directly account for this cost. The fact that one of these
    methods may be said to more accurately value this aspect
    of a reasonable royalty calculation does not, necessarily,
    make the other approach inadmissible.
    With this legal framework in mind, we review the dis-
    trict court’s damages rulings. In doing so, we apply
    Seventh Circuit law to the question of admissibility. See,
    e.g., Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 
    135 F.3d 1456
    ,
    1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Seventh Circuit reviews de
    novo whether the district court applied the proper legal
    framework; but reviews decisions to admit or exclude
    expert testimony under this framework for an abuse of
    discretion. See United States v. Parra, 
    402 F.3d 752
    , 758
    (7th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Allen, 
    269 F.3d 842
    , 845 (7th Cir. 2001)).
    Apple’s ’949 Patent
    As to the ’949 patent, we find that the district court
    improperly excluded Apple’s proposed expert testimony on
    damages. First, as discussed above, the district court
    based its damages analysis on an incorrect claim con-
    struction. This error, alone, would require reversal and
    remand because the erroneous claim construction here
    tainted the district court’s damages analysis. See, e.g.,
    Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 
    543 F.3d 1351
    , 1373
    (Fed. Cir. 2008) (vacating ruling that patentee was not
    entitled to damages and remanding for reconsideration
    based upon modified claim construction); Texas Digital
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            43
    Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 
    308 F.3d 1193
    , 1216 (Fed. Cir.
    2002) (vacating damages award where district court
    provided erroneous claim constructions to the jury).
    Second, the district court erred by not considering the full
    scope of the asserted claims, questioning the conclusions
    of Apple’s expert, and substituting its own opinion, rather
    than focusing on the reliability of the principles and
    methods used or the sufficiency of the facts and data
    relied upon. These errors also require reversal and re-
    mand.
    In order to estimate the value of the asserted claims
    of the ’949 patent, Apple’s expert (Brian W. Napper)
    analyzed Apple’s Magic Trackpad (“Trackpad”). 2 The
    Trackpad is a touchpad for use with Mac computers in
    place of a mouse. Much like a touchscreen, it has a tactile
    sensor that detects finger contacts and translates them
    into computer commands. A user touches the Trackpad
    with her fingers in order to scroll through documents or
    translate content on the computer screen. The Trackpad
    recognizes twelve finger gestures, including a vertical
    scrolling gesture and a horizontal scrolling gesture. The
    decision to use the Trackpad as a comparable product was
    supported by the testimony of one of Apple’s technical
    experts, Dr. Stephen Feiner, who concluded that the touch
    gestures of the Trackpad are “comparable or similar” to
    the claimed features of the ’949 patent. Further, Napper
    contended that the Trackpad features most similar to the
    asserted claims (such as the vertical scrolling and hori-
    zontal scrolling features) are the most used touch features
    of the Trackpad. Thus, Napper provided factual support
    2   Because much of Napper’s expert report is confi-
    dential, we are limited to providing an overview of his
    methodology and application but cannot include many of
    the supporting details.
    44                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    for his contention that a Trackpad includes features
    comparable to the claimed features.
    In order to isolate the value of the Trackpad’s touch
    features, Napper began by comparing the price of the
    Trackpad to that of a traditional computer mouse. Nap-
    per opined that the price difference between these prod-
    ucts could be attributed to two differences: the Trackpad’s
    touch features and its wireless connectivity, neither of
    which is present in a traditional mouse. Because wireless
    connectivity is not part of the asserted claims, Napper
    discounted his royalty based upon the estimated value of
    wireless connectivity in this context. Napper estimated
    this value by comparing the price of two sets of wired and
    wireless mice and using the midpoint price difference as a
    discount.
    Napper further discounted his royalty calculation to
    account for Trackpad touch features that are outside the
    scope of the asserted claims. Specifically, Napper con-
    cluded that a subset of the Trackpad touch features were
    “similar or comparable” to the asserted features. Thus, he
    reduced his royalty estimate by a proportional amount to
    account for the extra features. Following this procedure,
    Napper arrived at a reasonable royalty.
    Napper then compared his royalty calculation with
    royalty rates paid by Motorola in licenses for related
    touch screen technology. Napper concluded that, because
    the technology at issue in those licenses was similar but
    inferior, and because the parties to the license were not
    direct competitors, Motorola would have been willing to
    pay a higher royalty for a license to the asserted claims of
    the ’949 patent than it had paid in those licenses.
    As a possible design alternative, Napper testified that
    Motorola could have removed the asserted functionality
    from its products. Napper noted that this would create a
    less functional touchscreen due to specific technical
    reasons discussed in Dr. Feiner’s report. According to
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             45
    Napper, this would adversely impact the user’s experience
    of the touchscreen and create user frustration, thereby
    resulting in a less desirable product. Napper concluded
    that this alternative would not produce a reasonable
    estimate upon which to base damages.
    The district court reviewed Napper’s expert report
    and excluded all of his proposed testimony for the ’949
    patent. In large part, the court’s analysis incorporated,
    and was based upon, its incorrect claim construction,
    which limited the claims to products containing a pre-
    loaded Kindle application that uses a tap gesture to go to
    the next page. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 1:11-
    CV-08540, 
    2012 WL 1959560
     at *7 (N.D. Ill. May 22,
    2012) (“At this point in the litigation the dispositive
    element of the ’949 patent is the use of a tap on the right-
    hand side of the screen to switch to the next page of a
    Kindle book that has been loaded on the cell phone”); see
    
    id. at *7-8
     (discussing design alternatives only to the tap
    gesture). This overly narrow view of the claims led the
    court to conclude, incorrectly, that much of Napper’s
    analysis was too far removed from the asserted claims.
    Although it nearly exclusively relied on this narrow
    claim construction, the district court did recognize that
    Napper’s expert report was focused on the full (and prop-
    er) scope of the claims. In light of this, the court consid-
    ered whether Napper’s proposed testimony provided a
    reliable basis for estimating the value of another single
    claim limitation, the “vertical scrolling feature.” 3 The
    court found that it did not, concluding that “the fact that
    many consumers will pay more for a Magic Trackpad than
    for a mouse tells one nothing about what they will pay to
    avoid occasionally swiping unsuccessfully because their
    swiping finger wasn’t actually vertical to the screen.”
    3  Hence, the court did not consider Napper’s expert
    testimony in light of the full scope of the asserted claims.
    46                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    Thus, the court concluded that any comparison to a
    Trackpad was an “inadequate” method of estimating the
    value of either the vertical scrolling feature or the tap for
    the next page feature.
    Aside from relying on an incorrect claim construction,
    the district court erred by not considering the full scope of
    infringement. At no point did the court ask or consider
    whether Napper had used reliable principles and meth-
    ods, or sufficient data, to value the entire scope of the
    asserted claims. Consequently, the district court incor-
    rectly focused on individual claim limitations in isolation
    when evaluating the reliability of Napper’s methods. It is
    certainly conceivable that an otherwise sound methodolo-
    gy could appear unreliable (or, indeed, irrelevant) when
    applied to a single limitation, or a subset of limitations,
    rather than to the full set of infringed claims. This is why
    the proper inquiry evaluates the expert’s methodology in
    view of the full scope of the infringed claims. See 
    35 U.S.C. § 284
     (“[D]amages adequate to compensate for the
    infringement . . . a reasonable royalty for the use made of
    the invention by the infringer.”) (emphasis added); Gen.
    Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 
    461 U.S. 648
    , 655 (1983)
    (“Congress expressly provided in § 284 that the court
    ‘shall award the claimant damages adequate to compen-
    sate for the infringement.’”) (emphasis in original); Robert
    A. Matthews, Jr., Annotated Patent Digest § 30:6 (2014)
    (“All claim constructions define the bounds of what in-
    fringes, and therefore also define the bounds of what
    activity infringement damages are applicable to.”). Thus,
    the proper question is not whether a comparison to the
    Trackpad accurately values one of the claimed finger
    gestures. Rather, we must ask, with the entire scope of
    the asserted claims and the correct claim construction in
    mind, whether Napper employed reliable principles and
    methods, reliably applied them, and relied upon legally
    sufficient facts or data. We find that he did.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            47
    Contrary to the district court’s determination, Nap-
    per’s methodology is not inherently unsound; rather it is
    “the product of reliable principles and methods.” FED. R.
    EVID. 702. This court has upheld the use of similar meth-
    ods involving comparable benchmark products in the past.
    See, e.g., i4i, 
    598 F.3d at 853-854
    ; see also VirnetX Inc. v.
    Apple Inc., 
    925 F. Supp. 2d 816
    , 839 (E.D. Tex. 2013).
    Napper’s methodology focused on the claimed technology.
    As discussed, Napper began with an existing product
    containing features he contended were similar to the
    asserted features (the Trackpad). Next, Napper attempt-
    ed to isolate the value of these similar features by valuing
    other, non-claimed features of the Trackpad and subtract-
    ing this value. To reach a reasonable royalty, Napper
    then compared his resulting royalty to related licenses
    and rationalized the price differences. Napper also ad-
    dressed the possibility of removing the asserted features
    from the accused devices and argued that this would
    frustrate consumers and devalue the products. In all,
    Napper’s testimony was the product of reliable principles
    and methods.
    Napper also applied these principles and methods in a
    reliable way and supported them with legally sufficient
    facts and data. See FED. R. EVID. 702. Napper’s applica-
    tion was straightforward and adequately supported by
    Apple’s technical experts and Napper’s own experience
    and expertise, the latter of which is not disputed. For
    example, Napper’s assertion that the Trackpad’s features
    are comparable to the asserted features is the result of
    reliable application. Like the asserted claims, the Track-
    pad translates finger contacts into computer commands,
    including some of the same finger contacts and computer
    commands asserted. Napper also properly relied upon
    Apple’s technical expert to factually support this compari-
    son. To account for the differences between the Track-
    pad’s features and those of the asserted claims, Napper
    48                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    addressed these differences and discounted his royalty
    estimate.
    In excluding Napper’s testimony, the district court
    reasoned, “that a consumer will pay something for gestur-
    al control does not enable an estimation of how much he
    will pay for a particular improvement in a system of such
    control.” The court also found that there was a more
    preferable method for valuing the asserted claims that, it
    believed, would be used in a non-litigation context. Con-
    trary to the district court’s assertion, Napper’s estimate
    was not directed to the value of all “gestural control” but
    to the value of the asserted claims because Napper fo-
    cused on the asserted features, as described above. See
    supra at 39-41 (describing Napper’s identification of
    similar features, isolation of their value by discounting for
    unclaimed features, and comparison of royalty rate to
    similar license agreements). While the district court
    summarily concluded there was a better way to calculate
    damages, it did not point to any specific flaws in Napper’s
    Trackpad comparison. For example, the court did not
    question the testimony of Apple’s technical expert that
    the Trackpad’s features are “comparable or similar” to the
    asserted features. Nor did the court point to any flaws in
    Napper’s method of apportioning the cost of the relevant
    features in the Trackpad or explain why its preferred
    method of valuation was superior. Simply because other
    reliable methods of estimating a reasonable royalty may
    exist does not, by itself, render Napper’s approach inad-
    missible.
    The district court also faulted Napper for not directly
    estimating what a consumer “will pay to avoid occasional-
    ly swiping unsuccessfully because their swiping finger
    wasn’t actually vertical to the screen.” But Napper’s
    methodology did estimate what consumers will pay for the
    infringed features by evaluating what consumers have
    actually paid for comparable features. More generally,
    the value a consumer attributes to the infringing feature
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           49
    may be an important data point for estimating a royalty,
    but it is not a required piece of information in all cases.
    Here, the absence of a direct measurement of this value
    does not topple the entirety of the principles and methods
    employed by Napper. The statute requires determination
    of a “reasonable royalty,” not a reasonable consumer
    price. 4 As noted, there are multiple reasonable methods
    for calculating a royalty, and directly estimating the value
    a consumer places on the infringing feature is not a
    requirement of admissibility.
    Factually, if the Trackpad is not an accurate bench-
    mark, Motorola is free to challenge the benchmark or
    argue for a more accurate benchmark. But such an
    argument goes to evidentiary weight, not admissibility,
    especially when, as here, an expert has applied reliable
    methods to demonstrate a relationship between the
    benchmark and the infringed claims. See Lees, 714 F.3d
    at 596 (“Carthage is free to argue [for] . . . a preferable
    benchmark, but that again is a matter of evidentiary
    weight, not admissibility.”). Motorola may address any
    technical differences between the Trackpad and the
    asserted features, Napper’s analysis thereof, or the cor-
    rectness of Napper’s conclusions, during cross-
    examination. See Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 
    215 F.3d 713
    ,
    718 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining that disagreements about
    the factual underpinnings of an expert’s analysis go to
    4     Depending upon the case, the price a consumer
    would pay for an infringing feature may not, by itself,
    shed much light on what an infringer would pay to license
    that feature. For example, if we assume that a consumer
    is willing to pay $5.00 for a certain feature, an infringer
    may want to retain some of that as profit (and pay only a
    $3.00 royalty), but, depending upon the circumstances, it
    may be willing to sacrifice all of that gain (by paying a
    $5.00 royalty) and make its profit elsewhere.
    50                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    weight, not admissibility). But the district court’s deci-
    sion on the value estimated by Napper short-circuited
    Motorola’s opportunity to rebut Napper’s opinion through
    presentation of its own evidence. See Gayton v. McCoy,
    
    593 F.3d 610
    , 616 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Determinations on
    admissibility should not supplant the adversarial process;
    ‘shaky’ expert testimony may be admissible, assailable by
    its opponent through cross-examination.”) (citing Daubert,
    
    509 U.S. at 596
    ). Whether Napper’s testimony was the
    product of reliable principles and methods is the focus of
    admissibility; whether the testimony produced a correct
    degree of estimation of the value of the ’949 patent is a
    factual consideration reserved for the fact finder. Here,
    the district court resolved admissibility based upon its
    own view on the correct estimate of value for the ‘949
    patent, a question that should have been reserved for the
    jury.
    In sum, the majority of the district court’s analysis re-
    lied upon its incorrect claim construction and is therefore
    in error. The district court also erred by not considering
    the full scope of infringement, and by questioning the
    factual underpinnings and correctness of Napper’s testi-
    mony, rather than the reliability of his principles and
    method and the sufficiency of the data upon which he
    relied. The district court’s exclusion of Napper’s expert
    testimony regarding the ’949 patent is therefore reversed.
    Apple’s ’263 Patent
    The district court also excluded Apple’s damages evi-
    dence related to the ’263 patent because Apple’s expert
    relied upon information provided by a technical expert
    hired by Apple. The district court subsequently granted
    Motorola’s motion for summary judgment that Apple was
    entitled to no damages for infringement of the ’263 pa-
    tent. We reverse the district court’s decision to exclude
    Apple’s expert testimony and therefore vacate the court’s
    grant of summary judgment regarding the ’263 patent.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             51
    Apple’s damages expert, again Dr. Napper, opined
    that there were two approaches for designing around the
    asserted claims of the ’263 patent. The first approach
    would require Motorola to redesign the computer chip in
    its phones and also require the application providers (the
    companies behind products such as Facebook and
    YouTube) to redesign the applications that utilize stream-
    ing video or audio content. Napper estimated the cost of
    this approach at the time of infringement but concluded
    that this design around would have been practically
    unworkable for technical reasons unimportant here. The
    other design around option identified by Napper involved
    Motorola replacing a chip on its phones or adding an
    additional chip. To estimate this cost, Napper used a chip
    identified by one of Apple’s technical experts, Dr. Nathan
    Polish. Based upon facts and data made available to
    Napper by Polish, Napper concluded that it would have
    been more expensive to design around via this second
    option. Faced with these choices, Napper arrived at a set
    figure which he concluded Motorola would have been
    willing to pay as a reasonable royalty because it repre-
    sented the lesser of the two options.
    The district court excluded Napper’s proposed testi-
    mony for the sole reason that Napper relied upon an
    expert hired by Apple, Dr. Polish, for the identity of the
    replacement chip. The district court concluded that, had
    Polish been the only person competent to opine on the
    proper substitute chip, then Napper’s testimony would
    have been admissible. The court reasoned:
    imagine [a] . . . conversation between Napper and
    Motorola, which I’ll pretend hired Napper to ad-
    vise on how at lowest cost to duplicate the patent’s
    functionality without infringement: Motorola:
    ‘What will it cost us to invent around, for that will
    place a ceiling on the royalty we’ll pay Apple?’
    Napper: ‘Brace yourself: $35 million greenbacks.’
    Motorola: ‘That sounds high; where did you get
    52                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    the figure?’ Napper: ‘I asked an engineer who
    works for Apple.’ Motorola: ‘Dummkopf! You’re
    fired.’
    Apple, Inc., 
    2012 WL 1959560
     at *9. Based on this hypo-
    thetical conversation, the district court excluded all of
    Napper’s proposed testimony. 
    Id.
    The district court’s exclusion of Napper’s proposed
    testimony was erroneous. The district court’s decision
    states a rule that neither exists nor is correct. Experts
    routinely rely upon other experts hired by the party they
    represent for expertise outside of their field. See, e.g.,
    Dura Automotive Sys. of Ind., Inc. v. CTS Corp., 
    285 F.3d 609
    , 609-613 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[I]t is common in technical
    fields for an expert to base an opinion in part on what a
    different expert believes on the basis of expert knowledge
    not possessed by the first expert.”); Monsanto Co. v.
    David, 
    516 F.3d 1009
    , 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Numerous
    courts have held that reliance on scientific test results
    prepared by others may constitute the type of evidence
    that is reasonably relied upon by experts for purposes of
    Rule of Evidence 703.”). Rule 703 explicitly allows an
    expert to rely on information he has been made aware of
    “if experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on
    those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the
    subject.” FED. R. EVID. 703; see also Monsanto, 
    516 F.3d at 1016
    . This Rule does not predicate admissibility on the
    source of the facts or data or, in particular, on whether
    the source is employed by either of the parties.
    Consistent with Rule 703, patent damages experts of-
    ten rely on technical expertise outside of their field when
    evaluating design around options or valuing the im-
    portance of the specific, infringing features in a complex
    device. Monsanto, 
    516 F.3d at 1015
    . For example, a
    party may want to explain, from a technical perspective,
    why one potential design alternative is less expensive in
    order to justify a lower royalty calculation. Patent dam-
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            53
    ages calculations are often intertwined with highly tech-
    nical issues precisely because damages must be based on
    the scope of infringement, often an involved technical
    question. Despite this precedent, the district court errone-
    ously found that Apple cannot support its damages calcu-
    lation with information from a technical expert it has
    hired.
    In particular, the district court expressed concern that
    Dr. Polish’s technical advice was incurably biased because
    he was hired by Apple. See Apple, Inc., 
    2012 WL 1959560
    at *9 (Napper “obtained essential information, namely the
    identity of the chip that would avoid infringement, from
    an agent of the party rather than a disinterested
    source.”). While it may be true that the potential for bias
    is an inherent concern with respect to all hired experts,
    this concern is addressed by the weight given to the
    expert’s testimony, not its admissibility. See, e.g., Tagatz
    v. Marquette Univ., 
    861 F.2d 1040
    , 1042 (7th Cir. 1988)
    (“Hired experts, who generally are highly compensated –
    and by the party on whose behalf they are testifying – are
    not notably disinterested.”); Ethicon, 
    135 F.3d at 1465
    (“Furthermore, a witness’s pecuniary interest in the
    outcome of a case goes to the probative weight of testimo-
    ny, not its admissibility.”). To the extent bias exists,
    cross-examination and the testimony of an opposing
    expert may be used to “expose” it. Id.; see also Annotated
    Patent Digest, at § 44:43.150 (“That an expert may have a
    bias or self interest towards a party on whose behalf he or
    she is offering testimony, without more, generally does
    not require disqualifying the expert so long as the expert
    appears to be providing an objective analysis. Bias goes
    to the weight of the testimony, not necessarily its admis-
    sibility.”). In Tagatz, the court recognized that, in the
    context of a party testifying as his own expert, “the trier
    of fact should be able to discount for so obvious a conflict
    of interest.” 
    861 F.2d at 1042
    . Here, if the chip Dr. Polish
    has suggested is not the best or cheapest alternative,
    54                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    Motorola is free to address this issue on cross examination
    and through the testimony of its own expert witness. See,
    e.g., Walker, 
    208 F.3d at 589-90
    ; Stollings, 725 F.3d at
    765; Gayton, 
    593 F.3d at 616
    . The issue is one of eviden-
    tiary weight and not admissibility.
    The district court also implied that Dr. Polish’s rec-
    ommendation of a particular replacement chip is not the
    type of information that an expert in the field would
    reasonably rely upon outside the context of litigation.
    See Apple, Inc., 
    2012 WL 1959560
     at *9-*10; see also
    Kumho, 
    526 U.S. at 152
     (noting that an expert must
    employ “in the courtroom the same level of intellectual
    rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the
    relevant field.”). We disagree. As noted above, Rule 703
    requires that the expert testimony be tied to the facts of
    the case. See 
    id. at 153-54
    . If Apple hired Napper to
    value the asserted claims of the ’263 patent outside of
    litigation and there was technical issue Napper did not
    understand, it would be reasonable for Napper to ask a
    technical expert hired by Apple. For example, it would be
    reasonable for an Apple expert to explain the background
    of Apple’s patent, how the claimed invention fits into a
    larger product, or the key advances over the prior art. All
    of this information would be outside of Napper’s expertise
    but helpful, if not critical, to his task of valuing the pa-
    tent. Indeed, if the technical information needed was
    within the expertise of Apple employees, it would be
    wasteful for Apple, if not otherwise disadvantageous, not
    to provide it and, in certain circumstances, even deceitful.
    Overall, outside of litigation, it would be reasonable, and
    quite common, for Napper to rely on technical information
    provided by Apple or one of its experts in order to value
    the cost to design around Apple’s technology. Indeed,
    such an approach would carry the same intellectual rigor
    as the approach employed in the courtroom in this case.
    A rule that would exclude Apple’s damages evidence
    simply because it relies upon information from an Apple
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                          55
    technical expert is unreasonable and contrary to Rules
    702 and 703 and controlling precedent. As a result, we
    reverse the district court’s exclusion of Napper’s testimo-
    ny regarding the ’263 patent and vacate its grant of
    summary judgment regarding damages.
    Motorola’s ’898 Patent
    The district court excluded all of Motorola’s proposed
    testimony related to damages for infringement of the ’898
    patent and subsequently granted Apple’s motion for
    summary judgment that Motorola was entitled to no
    damages. We affirm the exclusion of the testimony that
    relied on Motorola’s licensing expert, Charles Donohoe.
    The district court erred, however, when it excluded the
    remainder of Motorola’s proposed expert testimony be-
    cause Motorola’s analysis of comparable licenses used
    “reliable principles and methods,” and Motorola reliably
    applied them to sufficient facts and data to estimate the
    overall value of the ’898 patent. Accordingly, we reverse
    the court’s exclusion of the remainder of Motorola’s dam-
    ages expert testimony and vacate the court’s grant of
    summary judgment.
    Motorola’s damages expert was Carla S. Mulhern.
    Mulhern’s proposed testimony included an analysis of
    license agreements between Motorola and “all of the
    major” cellular phone makers in the United States, except
    for Apple. While the terms of each agreement vary, all
    generally cover Motorola’s entire standard-essential
    patent (“SEP”) portfolio (hundreds of patents), of which
    the ’898 patent is a very small part. Some of the licenses
    were cross-licenses, wherein Motorola obtained a license
    to third parties’ SEPs. The royalty base in each of these
    licenses was the sale price of a cell phone. According to
    Mulhern, these licenses show that Motorola has previous-
    ly received a royalty rate of approximately 2.25% for a
    license to its entire SEP portfolio. Mulhern also examined
    licenses for SEP portfolios covering “cellular communica-
    56                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    tions technology” between Apple and third parties. These
    licenses also typically included cross-license agreements.
    Apple’s royalties under these agreements were in a simi-
    lar range.
    Because Apple is not alleged to infringe all of the pa-
    tents in Motorola’s SEP portfolio, Mulhern attempted to
    separate out the value of the ’898 patent from the total
    value of the portfolio. Mulhern recognized that individual
    patents in a SEP portfolio may have different values,
    based upon, for example, the relative importance of the
    patent to the standard or to the technology as a whole.
    Specifically, Mulhern opined that economic studies have
    shown that patent values are skewed with many patents
    having little or no value and a small minority having
    significant value. Mulhern also noted that, during a
    hypothetical negotiation, a licensee would expect to pay
    less for a license to a few patents than for an entire port-
    folio of standard-essential patents. Mulhern concluded,
    based upon the expert reports of Motorola’s technical
    experts, that the ’898 patent represented an important
    innovation and was “disproportionately valuable in the
    context of Motorola’s overall portfolio.”
    Mulhern opined that licensing one patent from a large
    SEP portfolio was not a typical industry practice because,
    in order to use a standard, a license to all essential pa-
    tents would be needed. In the “real world,” according to
    Mulhern, SEPs are only licensed in large portfolios.
    Mulhern cited proposed testimony of other experts with
    experience in the licensing industry to support this claim.
    Despite this industry practice, Mulhern recognized that
    the “hypothetical negotiation construct would force
    Motorola to enter into a license for just a subset of its
    standard-essential patents.” Such a license, according to
    Mulhern, would capture a “nonlinear” share of the portfo-
    lio rate because it would force Motorola to, inefficiently,
    license its patents a few at a time. In other words, the
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                         57
    first few patents licensed from the portfolio would com-
    mand a higher royalty rate than those that followed.
    Based upon this reasoning, Mulhern opined that the
    first few patents would typically command 40%-50% of
    the entire portfolio rate. Mulhern supported this 40%-
    50% estimate with: the proposed testimony of another of
    Motorola’s licensing experts, Charles Donohoe; the state-
    ments of a Motorola licensing executive; the statements of
    a former Ericsson licensing executive; and her knowledge
    of “IBM’s well-known licensing policy in the 1980s and
    early 1990s.” According to Mulhern, IBM would offer a
    license to a single patent in its portfolio, which totaled
    over 10,000 patents, at a royalty rate of 1% of net sale
    price. Each successive patent would cost an additional
    1%, up to the fifth patent licensed. Beyond five patents,
    or a 5% royalty, the rate would not increase. Based upon
    this analysis, Mulhern concluded, as one estimate, that
    the ’898 patent was worth 40%-50% of Motorola’s SEP
    portfolio rate.
    As an alternative and more conservative estimate,
    Mulhern opined that the ’898 patent represented 5% of
    the “actually-essential” patents in Motorola’s portfolio.
    This estimate did not rely upon Mulhern’s “non-linear”
    valuation theory, but rather was based upon a linear
    “modified patent counting method.” Under this approach,
    Mulhern concluded that Apple would have been willing to
    pay 5% of the entire SEP portfolio rate for a license to
    the ’898 patent.
    Mulhern also recognized that Apple could have avoid-
    ed infringement by introducing an iPhone only on the
    Verizon network, which did not use the GMS/UTMS
    networks. Mulhern addressed Apple’s design around cost
    at the time of the hypothetical negotiation by first con-
    cluding that the ’898 patent was essential to the
    GMS/UTMS mobile networks and that, therefore, Apple
    could not use these networks without a license. Mulhern
    58                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    outlined purported impracticalities with the Verizon
    option, including confidential details we decline to recite
    here. Stopping there, Mulhern did not specifically esti-
    mate the cost to Apple of pursuing a Verizon phone in
    place of an AT&T phone.
    The district court assumed that the royalty rates pro-
    posed by Motorola satisfied its fair, reasonable and non-
    discriminatory (“FRAND”) licensing obligations but,
    nevertheless, excluded all of Mulhern’s proposed testimo-
    ny because she “failed to consider the range of plausible
    alternatives . . . facing Apple.” Specifically, the district
    court concluded that Mulhern’s “failure to analyze” the
    possibility of Apple contracting with Verizon made her
    method unreliable. It appears the district court was
    concerned with Mulhern’s failure to specifically value the
    cost of contracting with Verizon in place of AT&T. See
    Apple, Inc., 
    2012 WL 1959560
     at *11 (“Mulhern offers no
    evidence that it would have been $347 million more costly
    to Apple” to contract with Verizon over AT&T.). Regard-
    ing Donohoe’s proposed testimony, the district court noted
    that his declaration did not offer any basis for selecting
    the correct nonlinear royalty rate. In addition, Donohoe
    “admitted that he knows nothing about the portfolio that
    includes the ’898 patent; his 40-to-50 percent figure is a
    statement about portfolios of standards-essential tele-
    communications patents in general.”
    We agree with the district court that Donohoe’s testi-
    mony is insufficient to support an award of damages.
    Indeed, the district court would have been justified in
    excluding Donohoe’s testimony as inherently unreliable
    based on his failure to tie the 40%-50% rate to the techno-
    logical contribution of the patent to the standard-essential
    patent portfolio. We have consistently explained that
    proof of damages must be carefully tied to the claimed
    invention itself. See ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 
    594 F.3d 860
    , 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Riles v. Shell Exploration
    & Prod. Co., 
    298 F.3d 1302
    , 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (exclud-
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           59
    ing patentee’s damages model because the expert “[did]
    not associate his proposed royalty with the value of the
    patented method at all”). Here, where Donohoe admitted
    that he knew nothing about the SEP portfolio at issue and
    did not even purport to link the 40%-50% rate to the
    claimed invention of the ’898 patent, there can be little
    doubt whether his testimony was tied to the facts of this
    case. 5
    Mulhern incorporated Donohoe’s testimony into her
    own when she relied on his proposed testimony to opine
    that the first few patents from a given portfolio would
    typically command 40%-50% of the entire portfolio rate.
    The substance of Donohoe’s testimony is no more reliable
    when admitted through Mulhern than through Donohoe
    himself. We note that the general theory that Donohoe
    and Mulhern relied upon, that the first patent from a
    larger portfolio may, in practice, garner a larger royalty
    than later patents from the same portfolio, is not inher-
    ently unreliable. Testimony based upon this theory may
    be admissible if properly tied to the claimed invention.
    But here, where a potentially reliable theory is not tied to
    the facts of the case, the expert testimony is inadmissible.
    See, e.g., Kumho, 
    526 U.S. at 154-55
    . For these reasons,
    we affirm the district court’s exclusion of that portion of
    Mulhern’s testimony that was based on Donohoe’s decla-
    ration.
    We disagree with the district court regarding the re-
    mainder of Mulhern’s testimony. Although Mulhern did
    not directly estimate the cost to Apple of choosing AT&T
    over Verizon, Mulhern did “consider” and “analyze” the
    5     Indeed, as Apple points out, Motorola did not ad-
    just its 40%-50% rate when the ’559 patent dropped out of
    the case on summary judgment, further suggesting that
    the rate was never tied to the specific patents at issue.
    See Apple Reply Br. 38-39.
    60                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    possibility of Apple overcoming the difficulties of contract-
    ing with Verizon and releasing an iPhone on a different
    network. While the district court may disagree with
    Mulhern’s conclusions that contracting with Verizon was
    not desirable or practical and that, therefore, this option
    need not be specifically valued, this is an issue that Apple
    could address at trial via cross-examination and presenta-
    tion of its own expert evidence. See, e.g., Walker, 
    208 F.3d at 589-90
    ; Gayton, 
    593 F.3d at 616
    . That a party may
    choose to pursue one course of proving damages over
    another does not render its expert’s damages testimony
    inadmissible. Nor is there a requirement that a patentee
    value every potential non-infringing alternative in order
    for its damages testimony to be admissible.
    The district court failed to recognize that Mulhern did
    construct a cost estimate typically relied upon when
    calculating patent damages – the cost to license the
    technology. See, e.g., Riles, 
    298 F.3d at 1313
    ; Studieng-
    esellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Dart Indus., Inc., 
    862 F.2d 1564
    , 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“The patentee’s usual licens-
    ing approach should be considered in assessing a reason-
    able royalty.”). As we have held many times, using
    sufficiently comparable licenses is a generally reliable
    method of estimating the value of a patent. See, e.g.,
    ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 
    694 F.3d 1312
    , 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Lucent Techs., Inc. v.
    Gateway, Inc., 
    580 F.3d 1301
    , 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“The
    second Georgia-Pacific factor is ‘[t]he rates paid by the
    licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the
    patent in suit.’”) (citing Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Ply-
    wood Corp., 
    318 F. Supp. 1116
    , 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970));
    Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 
    86 F.3d 1098
    , 1110 (Fed. Cir.
    1996) (“This rate is supported by evidence that Maxwell
    entered into agreements with other licensees at a royalty
    rate of $.10 per pair of shoes.”); Nickson Indus., Inc. v. Rol
    Mfg. Co., 
    847 F.2d 795
    , 798 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Where an
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           61
    established royalty exists, it will usually be the best
    measure of what is a ‘reasonable’ royalty.”).
    This approach is generally reliable because the royal-
    ty that a similarly-situated party pays inherently ac-
    counts for market conditions at the time of the
    hypothetical negotiation, including a number of factors
    that are difficult to value, such as the cost of available,
    non-infringing alternatives. See LaserDynamics, Inc. v.
    Quanta Computer, Inc., 
    694 F.3d 51
    , 79 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
    (“Actual licenses to the patented technology are highly
    probative as to what constitutes a reasonable royalty for
    those patent rights because such actual licenses most
    clearly reflect the economic value of the patented technol-
    ogy in the marketplace.”). For example, in this case,
    Motorola’s other licensees would have had the option of
    only releasing a phone on the Verizon network. Thus, the
    royalty rate agreed to in these licenses, assuming the
    overall licensing situation is factually comparable, would
    necessarily account for the cost of this non-infringing
    alternative.
    Here, whether these licenses are sufficiently compa-
    rable such that Motorola’s calculation is a reasonable
    royalty goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissi-
    bility. See ActiveVideo, 694 F.3d at 1333. Mulhern’s
    analysis of comparable licenses used “reliable principles
    and methods,” and reliably applied them to sufficient
    facts and data on the record to calculate the overall value
    of the ’898 patent, including the cost of non-infringing
    alternatives. FED. R. EVID. 702. With the aid of Apple’s
    cross-examination and expert testimony, the jury is
    capable of assigning the appropriate weight to Mulhern’s
    testimony based upon their judgment of her credibility,
    factual analysis, and conclusions.
    In sum, with the exception of the testimony that re-
    lied upon Donohoe’s declaration, we reverse the district
    court’s exclusion of Mulhern’s proposed testimony. Con-
    62                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    sequently, we vacate the court’s grant of summary judg-
    ment regarding damages for infringement.
    SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    After the district court excluded the majority of the
    damages expert testimony, both parties moved for sum-
    mary judgment regarding damages and injunctive relief.
    Having excluded their damages evidence, the court found
    that neither party was entitled to any damages or an
    injunction and granted the motions. As noted above, on
    the basis of our reversal of the district court’s admissibil-
    ity decisions, we vacate the court’s grant of summary
    judgment regarding damages for Apple’s ’949 and ’263
    patents and for Motorola’s ’898 patent. All that remains
    is the district court’s grant of summary judgment that
    Apple was not entitled to any damages for infringement of
    the ’647 patent and that neither party was entitled to an
    injunction. As discussed below, we reverse the court’s
    decision that Apple was not entitled to any damages for
    infringement of the ’647 patent, vacate its decision that
    Apple was not entitled to an injunction, and affirm its
    decision that Motorola is not entitled to an injunction.
    Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings,
    depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
    on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
    there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
    the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
    law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). We review the district court’s
    grant of summary judgment under regional circuit law,
    which is that of the Seventh Circuit. See, e.g., Mi-
    croStrategy, Inc. v. Bus. Objects, S.A., 
    429 F.3d 1344
    , 1349
    (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Seventh Circuit reviews a grant of
    summary judgment de novo. See, e.g., Feliberty v. Kemper
    Corp., 
    98 F.3d 274
    , 276 (7th Cir. 1996) (“When we review
    a district court's grant of summary judgment, we consider
    the record according to the same standards employed by
    the district court.”).
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                          63
    Apple’s ’647 Patent
    Motorola moved for summary judgment that, even as-
    suming the ’647 patent was infringed, Apple was not
    entitled to any damages, including a nominal reasonable
    royalty. Motorola argued that Apple was not entitled to
    damages because there was “no evidence upon which
    Apple may rely to reliably establish or measure any
    amount of damages” for infringement of the ’647 patent.
    The district court agreed and concluded that Apple
    was not entitled to any measure of damages because
    Apple had failed to show that its measure of damages was
    correct.    We disagree and hold that a finding that a
    royalty estimate may suffer from factual flaws does not,
    by itself, support the legal conclusion that zero is a rea-
    sonable royalty. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc.,
    
    341 F.3d 1370
    , 1382, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“However, the
    fact that the agreement did not support the specific
    amount requested by Dow does not thereby mean that it
    does not support any award at all.”).
    Due to the procedural posture in this case, we must
    assume that the patents at issue are valid and infringed.
    With infringement assumed, the statute requires the
    court to award damages “in no event less than a reasona-
    ble royalty.” 
    35 U.S.C. § 284
    ; see also Dow Chemical Co.,
    
    341 F.3d at 1381-82
     (noting that a district court is obli-
    gated to award damages once infringement is found, and
    reversing a finding of no damages that was based upon a
    lack of expert evidence). Because no less than a reasona-
    ble royalty is required, the fact finder must determine
    what royalty is supported by the record. See Norian Corp.
    v. Stryker Corp., 
    363 F.3d 1321
    , 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
    (holding that “the jury’s finding of no damages cannot be
    supported” because “the statute requires that damages to
    a successful claimant in a patent infringement suit shall
    not be less than a reasonable royalty”); Riles, 
    298 F.3d at 1311
     (“The statute guarantees patentees a reasonable
    64                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    royalty even when they are unable to prove entitlement to
    lost profits or an established royalty rate.”); Lindemann
    Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 
    895 F.2d 1403
    , 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“In patent law, the fact
    of infringement establishes the fact of damage because
    the patentee’s right to exclude has been violated.”); Anno-
    tated Patent Digest, § 30:7 (“When a patentee shows
    infringement, a presumption arises that the patentee is
    entitled to some form of damages. The Federal Circuit
    has explained that this presumption arises from the
    statute once infringement is admitted or proven.”).
    If a patentee’s evidence fails to support its specific
    royalty estimate, the fact finder is still required to deter-
    mine what royalty is supported by the record. 6 See Dow
    Chem., 
    341 F.3d at 1381-82
     (“The statute is unequivocal
    that the district court must award damages in an amount
    no less than a reasonable royalty.”); Norian, 
    363 F.3d at 1333
    ; Lindemann Maschinenfabrik, 
    895 F.2d at 1406
    ; Del
    Mar Avionics, Inc. v. Quinton Instrument Co., 
    836 F.2d 1320
    , 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“The requirement to deter-
    mine actual damages is not diminished by difficulty of
    determination.”). Indeed, if the record evidence does not
    fully support either party’s royalty estimate, the fact
    6   By contrast, if a patentee seeks lost profits and
    fails to meet its burden, then an award of no lost profits is
    justified. See R.R. Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co., 
    727 F.2d 1506
    , 1520 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming district court
    decision awarding no lost profits, due to lack of proof, but
    awarding reasonable royalty); Gustafson, Inc. v. Intersys-
    tem Indus. Prods., Inc., 
    897 F.2d 508
    , 509-10 (1990)
    (finding, in the lost profits context, “no reversible error in
    the district court’s . . . awarding no damages to Gustafson
    because none were proven”). This is because a lost profits
    award is above and beyond the reasonable royalty floor
    required by the statute.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            65
    finder must still determine what constitutes a reasonable
    royalty from the record evidence. See SmithKline Diag-
    nostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp., 
    926 F.2d 1161
    , 1167-68
    (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[T]he factual determination of a reason-
    able royalty, however, need not be supported, and indeed,
    frequently is not supported by the specific figures ad-
    vanced by either party. . . . [T]he district court may reject
    the extreme figures proffered by the litigants as incredible
    and substitute an intermediate figure as a matter of its
    judgment from all of the evidence.”). Certainly, if the
    patentee’s proof is weak, the court is free to award a low,
    perhaps nominal, royalty, as long as that royalty is sup-
    ported by the record. See Lindemann Machinenfabrik,
    
    895 F.2d at 1407-08
     (affirming $10,000 reasonable royalty
    award because patentee failed to provide sufficient evi-
    dence to support a greater award).
    Thus, a fact finder may award no damages only when
    the record supports a zero royalty award. For example, in
    a case completely lacking any evidence on which to base a
    damages award, the record may well support a zero
    royalty award. Also, a record could demonstrate that, at
    the time of infringement, the defendant considered the
    patent valueless and the patentee would have accepted no
    payment for the defendant’s infringement. Of course, it
    seems unlikely that a willing licensor and willing licensee
    would agree to a zero royalty payment in a hypothetical
    negotiation, where both infringement and validity are
    assumed. 7
    7    We note that we know of no case where we found
    that the record supported an infringement award of a zero
    royalty. Id.; see also DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
    Sofamor Danek, Inc., 
    567 F.3d 1314
    , 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
    (finding 0% jury royalty award inconsistent with finding
    of infringement and jury instruction that the jury choose
    a rate between 6% and 15%). But see Devex Corp. v. Gen.
    66                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    At summary judgment, as is the case here, a judge
    may only award a zero royalty for infringement if there is
    no genuine issue of material fact that zero is the only
    reasonable royalty. Thus, if a patentee raises a factual
    issue regarding whether it is due any non-zero royalty,
    summary judgment must be denied. In any event, simply
    because a patentee fails to show that its royalty estimate
    is correct does not, by itself, justify awarding a royalty of
    zero at summary judgment, as the district court did here.
    See Dow Chem., 
    341 F.3d at
    1382 n.4.
    On appeal, Apple points out that not all of its damag-
    es expert testimony for the ’647 patent was excluded.
    Specifically, Apple’s expert report, prepared by Napper,
    estimated a royalty based upon the time it allegedly took
    another smartphone manufacturer, HTC Corporation
    (“HTC”), to design around the same patent. The United
    States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued an
    exclusion order against HTC based upon infringement of
    the ’647 patent, the same patent Apple asserts here. The
    ITC gave HTC a four-month grace period before the
    exclusion order took effect. Based upon this, Napper
    concluded that four months was a relevant timeframe for
    designing around the ’647 patent. Napper noted that
    HTC and Motorola would likely have similar resources to
    develop a design around. Napper estimated that Motorola
    would lose $52 million in operating profit based upon the
    removal of its accused products from the market for this
    four-month period. Accordingly, Napper concluded that
    Motorola would be willing to pay a $52 million royalty.
    Motors Corp., 
    667 F.2d 347
    , 361 (3d Cir. 1981) (“In the
    absence of any evidence as to what would constitute a
    reasonable royalty in a given case, a fact finder would
    have no means of arriving at a reasonable royalty, and
    none could be awarded.”), aff’d on other grounds, 
    461 U.S. 648
     (1983).
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                         67
    The district court noted that it did not exclude this
    aspect of Napper’s proposed testimony. Nevertheless, the
    court discredited the testimony because the ITC’s claim
    construction differed from the court’s and because Napper
    failed to sufficiently address any differences between the
    two companies, HTC and Motorola. The court did not,
    however, identify any differences between HTC and
    Motorola that undermined Napper’s royalty estimate.
    The court determined that Apple was not entitled to any
    measure of damages because it had not proven its HTC-
    based royalty estimate was correct. See Apple, Inc. v.
    Motorola, Inc., 
    869 F. Supp. 2d 901
    , 911 (N.D. Ill. 2012)
    (“Apple has not presented admissible evidence that the
    Georgia Pacific factors support its damages claim.”).
    The record before us does not support granting sum-
    mary judgment of no damages. Motorola has not met its
    burden of demonstrating, as the party who moved for
    summary judgment, that the record is uncontroverted
    that zero is the only reasonable royalty.
    Other than incorrectly asserting that Apple has no
    admissible expert evidence, Motorola itself provides no
    evidence or argument to support a zero royalty. For
    example, there is nothing in the record suggesting that
    Apple would have been willing to accept no payment for
    Motorola’s infringement. Nor is there any evidence that,
    at the time of infringement, Motorola concluded that
    the ’647 patent had no value. To the contrary, Apple has
    expert evidence on record indicating that it would take
    four months to design around the ’647 patent. Apple’s
    expert estimated the profit lost by Motorola during this
    design around period based upon Motorola’s sales figures
    for the accused devices. Apple also presented evidence, in
    arguing for an injunction, that the claimed features of
    the ’647 patent drive consumer demand for its products.
    The specific reasonable royalty this – and any other
    record evidence – supports is a factual question reserved
    for the jury.
    68                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    The problems that the district court identifies with
    Apple’s HTC-based royalty estimate (a different claim
    construction before the ITC and potential differences
    between HTC and Motorola) only serve to illustrate that
    factual disputes remain. 8 Hence, the district court’s
    conclusion that Apple’s HTC-based estimate was flawed
    does not establish, as a matter of law, a zero royalty. 9 See
    Norian, 
    363 F.3d at 1333
    ; Dow Chem., 
    341 F.3d at
    1382
    n.4; Del Mar, 
    836 F.2d at 1327
     (“The trial court is re-
    quired to approximate, if necessary, the amount to which
    the patent owner is entitled.”). Even if Apple had not
    submitted expert evidence, this alone would not support a
    finding that zero is a reasonable royalty. See Dow Chem.,
    
    341 F.3d at 1381-82
     (reversing award of no damages,
    which was based upon a lack of admissible expert evi-
    dence, and remanding for determination of royalty); 7
    Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 20.07[3][a] (2011)
    (“In considering the question of evidence and certainty of
    proof required to justify an award of a reasonable royalty,
    one should distinguish between (1) the existence of dam-
    age to a patentee which will support any award and (2)
    the evidentiary support for a particular rate or quantity
    as a reasonable royalty. As to the first issue, no specific
    proof should be required. The premise of the reasonable
    royalty measure is that a holder of a valid and infringed
    patent has inherently suffered legal damage at least to
    the extent of a lost license royalty opportunity.”); Anno-
    tated Patent Digest, § 44:79 (“The use of expert testimony
    8   Motorola tacitly acknowledges this by arguing on
    appeal that Apple’s evidence is inadmissible, not that it is
    factually flawed.
    9    We would be answering a different question if
    Motorola had moved that Napper’s HTC-based calculation
    was incorrect as a matter of law. In that situation, point-
    ing to flaws in Napper’s analysis could be enough to
    justify summary judgment.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           69
    is permissive. Thus, if a patentee’s damage expert is
    excluded, that fact does not automatically deny a patentee
    a right to recover damages.”); FED. R. EVID. 702 (“A wit-
    ness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
    experience, training, or education may testify.”) (emphasis
    added); 
    35 U.S.C. § 284
     (“The court may receive expert
    testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of
    what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstanc-
    es.”) (emphasis added).
    In sum, Motorola has not demonstrated that there is
    no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether zero
    is a reasonable royalty for infringement of the ’647 patent.
    Motorola presented no evidence that zero was a reasona-
    ble royalty. In contrast, Apple presented admissible
    evidence that it is entitled to a non-zero royalty. That
    Apple’s royalty estimate may suffer from factual flaws
    does not, by itself, support the legal conclusion that zero
    is a reasonable royalty. Accordingly, we reverse the
    district court’s grant of summary judgment.
    Apple’s Request for an Injunction
    The district court granted Motorola’s motion for
    summary judgment that Apple was not entitled to an
    injunction for infringement of the ’949, ’263 and ’647
    patents because Apple had failed to show a causal nexus
    between any alleged irreparable harm and Motorola’s
    infringement. The district court’s analysis necessarily
    relied upon its overly narrow construction of the claims of
    the ’949 patent. We have reversed the court’s claim
    construction decision, thus altering the potential scope of
    infringement underlying Apple’s injunction request. The
    scope of infringement permeates an injunction analysis.
    See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 
    735 F.3d 1352
    ,
    1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he purpose of the causal nexus
    requirement is to show that the patentee is irreparably
    harmed by the infringement.”) (emphasis in original). For
    example, when considering whether to enjoin a product, it
    70                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    is proper for the court to consider the aggregate harm
    caused by all of the infringing features, rather than
    requiring a patentee to address each patent or claim
    individually. See 
    id. at 1365
     (“We believe there may be
    circumstances where it is logical and equitable to view
    patents in the aggregate.”).
    Infringement of multiple patents by a single device
    may strengthen a patentee’s argument for an injunction
    by, for example, supporting its argument that the in-
    fringed features drive consumer demand or are causing
    irreparable harm. 
    Id.
     By the same token, we also consid-
    er the impact on the general public of an injunction on a
    product with many non-infringing features. See 
    id. at 1372-73
     (“We see no problem with the district court’s
    decision, in determining whether an injunction would
    disserve the public interest, to consider the scope of
    Apple’s requested injunction relative to the scope of the
    patented features and the prospect that an injunction
    would have the effect of depriving the public of access to a
    large number of non-infringing features.”).
    Accordingly, because we have reversed the district
    court’s construction of the ’949 patent, we vacate its grant
    of summary judgment regarding Apple’s request for an
    injunction.
    Motorola’s Request for an Injunction
    Apple moved for summary judgment that Motorola
    was not entitled to an injunction for infringement of
    the ’898 patent. While we review the district court’s
    decision to grant or deny an injunction for an abuse of
    discretion, Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Chiron Corp.,
    
    384 F.3d 1326
    , 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004), we review the
    district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
    Feliberty, 
    98 F.3d at 276
    . The Supreme Court in eBay Inc.
    v. MercExchange, L.L.C. outlined the factors a district
    court should consider before issuing an permanent injunc-
    tion, stating that “a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                          71
    has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies
    available at law, such as monetary damages, are inade-
    quate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering
    the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and de-
    fendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the
    public interest would not be disserved by a permanent
    injunction.” 
    547 U.S. 388
    , 391 (2006).
    The ’898 patent is a SEP and, thus, Motorola has
    agreed to license it on fair, reasonable, and non-
    discriminatory licensing (“FRAND”) terms. The district
    court granted Apple’s motion, stating:
    I don’t see how, given FRAND, I would be justified
    in enjoining Apple from infringing the ’898 unless
    Apple refuses to pay a royalty that meets the
    FRAND requirement. By committing to license
    its patents on FRAND terms, Motorola committed
    to license the ’898 to anyone willing to pay a
    FRAND royalty and thus implicitly acknowledged
    that a royalty is adequate compensation for a li-
    cense to use that patent. How could it do other-
    wise? How could it be permitted to enjoin Apple
    from using an invention that it contends Apple
    must use if it wants to make a cell phone with
    UMTS telecommunications capability—without
    which it would not be a cell phone.
    Apple, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d at 913-14 (emphases in orginal).
    To the extent that the district court applied a per se
    rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, it erred.
    While Motorola’s FRAND commitments are certainly
    criteria relevant to its entitlement to an injunction, we
    see no reason to create, as some amici urge, a separate
    rule or analytical framework for addressing injunctions
    for FRAND-committed patents. The framework laid out
    by the Supreme Court in eBay, as interpreted by subse-
    quent decisions of this court, provides ample strength and
    flexibility for addressing the unique aspects of FRAND
    72                             APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    committed patents and industry standards in general.
    
    547 U.S. at 391-94
    . A patentee subject to FRAND com-
    mitments may have difficulty establishing irreparable
    harm. On the other hand, an injunction may be justified
    where an infringer unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty
    or unreasonably delays negotiations to the same effect.
    See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Justice and U.S. Patent and
    Trademark Office, Policy Statement on Remedies for
    Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary
    F/RAND Commitments, at 7-8 (Jan. 8, 2013). To be clear,
    this does not mean that an alleged infringer’s refusal to
    accept any license offer necessarily justifies issuing an
    injunction. For example, the license offered may not be on
    FRAND terms. In addition, the public has an interest in
    encouraging participation in standard-setting organiza-
    tions but also in ensuring that SEPs are not overvalued.
    While these are important concerns, the district courts
    are more than capable of considering these factual issues
    when deciding whether to issue an injunction under the
    principles in eBay.
    Applying those principles here, we agree with the dis-
    trict court that Motorola is not entitled to an injunction
    for infringement of the ’898 patent. Motorola’s FRAND
    commitments, which have yielded many license agree-
    ments encompassing the ’898 patent, strongly suggest
    that money damages are adequate to fully compensate
    Motorola for any infringement. Similarly, Motorola has
    not demonstrated that Apple’s infringement has caused it
    irreparable harm. Considering the large number of
    industry participants that are already using the system
    claimed in the ’898 patent, including competitors,
    Motorola has not provided any evidence that adding one
    more user would create such harm. Again, Motorola has
    agreed to add as many market participants as are willing
    to pay a FRAND royalty. Motorola argues that Apple has
    refused to accept its initial licensing offer and stalled
    negotiations. However, the record reflects that negotia-
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                     73
    tions have been ongoing, and there is no evidence that
    Apple has been, for example, unilaterally refusing to
    agree to a deal. Consequently, we affirm the district
    court’s grant of summary judgment that Motorola is not
    entitled to an injunction for infringement of the ’898
    patent.
    AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART,
    VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED
    COSTS
    Each party shall bear its own costs.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    APPLE INC. AND NEXT SOFTWARE, INC.
    (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.),
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    MOTOROLA, INC. (now known as Motorola Solu-
    tions, Inc.) AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
    Defendants-Cross Appellants.
    ______________________
    2012-1548, -1549
    ______________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Illinois in No. 11-CV-8540, Circuit
    Judge Richard A. Posner.
    ______________________
    RADER, Chief Judge, dissenting-in-part.
    I join the court’s opinion in its entirety, except for the
    affirmance of the district court’s denial of Motorola’s
    request for an injunction. To my eyes, the record contains
    sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material
    fact on Apple’s posture as an unwilling licensee whose
    continued infringement of the ’898 patent caused irrepa-
    rable harm. Because of the unique and intensely factual
    circumstances surrounding patents adopted as industry
    standards, I believe the district court improperly granted
    summary judgment. Therefore, on this narrow point, I
    respectfully dissent in part.
    2                                APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    At the outset, a patent adopted as a standard un-
    doubtedly gains value by virtue of that adoption. This
    enhancement complicates the evaluation of the technology
    independent of the standardization. By the same token,
    the standardization decision may also simply reflect and
    validate the inherent value of the technology advance
    accomplished by the patent. Untangling these value
    components (at the heart of deciding whether a putative
    licensee was “unwilling” to license, and thus irreparable
    harm and other injunction factors) requires intense
    economic analysis of complex facts. In sum, right from
    the theoretical outset, this question is not likely to be
    susceptible to summary adjudication.
    In reciting the legal principles for an injunction, this
    court accurately states the inquiries. Those principles
    supply no per se rule either favoring or proscribing in-
    junctions for patents in any setting, let alone the height-
    ened complexity of standardized technology. This court
    notes that a patent owner in a standard context “may
    have difficulty establishing irreparable harm . . . . [but] an
    injunction may be justified where an infringer unilateral-
    ly refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably delays
    negotiations to the same effect.” Majority Op. 72 (citing
    U.S. Dep’t of Justice and U.S. Patent and Trademark
    Office, Policy Statement on Remedies for Standard-
    Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Com-
    mitments, at 7–8 (Jan. 8, 2013)).
    Market analysts will no doubt observe that a “hold
    out” (i.e., an unwilling licensee of an SEP seeking to avoid
    a license based on the value that the technological ad-
    vance contributed to the prior art) is equally as likely and
    disruptive as a “hold up” (i.e., an SEP owner demanding
    unjustified royalties based solely on value contributed by
    the standardization). These same complex factual ques-
    tions regarding “hold up” and “hold out” are highly rele-
    vant to an injunction request. In sum, differentiating
    “hold up” from “hold out” requires some factual analysis of
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            3
    the sources of value—the inventive advance or the stand-
    ardization.
    The record in this case shows evidence that Apple
    may have been a hold out. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v.
    Motorola, Inc., 
    869 F. Supp. 2d 901
    , 914 (N.D. Ill. 2012);
    Appellees’ Br. 64–65, 72–73; Appellees’ Reply Br. 26–27;
    J.A. 118884–86. This evidence alone would create a
    dispute of material fact.
    More important, the district court made no effort to
    differentiate the value due to inventive contribution from
    the value due to standardization. Without some attention
    to that perhaps dispositive question, the trial court was
    adrift without a map, let alone a compass or GPS system.
    In fact, without that critical inquiry, the district court
    could not have properly applied the eBay test as it should
    have.
    Instead of a proper injunction analysis, the district
    court effectively considered Motorola’s FRAND commit-
    ment as dispositive by itself: “Motorola committed to
    license the ’898 to anyone willing to pay a FRAND royalty
    and thus implicitly acknowledged that a royalty is ade-
    quate compensation for a license to use that patent. How
    could it do otherwise?” Apple, 869 F. Supp. 2d at 914. To
    the contrary, Motorola committed to offer a FRAND
    license, which begs the question: What is a “fair” and
    “reasonable” royalty? If Motorola was offering a fair and
    reasonable royalty, then Apple was likely “refus[ing] a
    FRAND royalty or unreasonably delay[ing] negotiations.”
    See Majority Op. 72. In sum, the district court could not
    duck the question that it did not address; was Motorola’s
    FRAND offer actually FRAND?
    Furthermore, the district court acknowledged the con-
    flicting evidence about Apple’s willingness to license
    the ’898 patent: “Apple’s refusal to negotiate for a license
    (if it did refuse—the parties offer competing accounts,
    unnecessary for me to resolve, of why negotiations broke
    4                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    down) was not a defense to a claim by Motorola for a
    FRAND royalty.” Apple, 869 F. Supp. 2d at 914. Yet this
    scenario, adequately presented by this record, is precisely
    one that the court today acknowledges may justify an
    injunction.
    In my opinion, the court should have allowed
    Motorola to prove that Apple was an unwilling licensee,
    which would strongly support its injunction request. The
    court states that “the record reflects that negotiations
    have been ongoing,” Majority Op. 72–73; but, as the
    district court even acknowledged, Motorola asserts other-
    wise—that Apple for years refused to negotiate while
    nevertheless infringing the ’898 patent, see, e.g., Appel-
    lees’ Br. 64–65, 72–73; Appellees’ Reply Br. 26–27.
    Motorola should have had the opportunity to prove its
    case that Apple’s alleged unwillingness to license or even
    negotiate supports a showing that money damages are
    inadequate and that it suffered irreparable harm. The
    district court refused to develop the facts necessary to
    apply eBay as it should have. Consequently, the case
    should be remanded to develop that record. For these
    reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    APPLE INC. AND NEXT SOFTWARE, INC.
    (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.),
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    MOTOROLA, INC. (now known as Motorola Solu-
    tions, Inc.) AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
    Defendants-Cross Appellants.
    ______________________
    2012-1548, -1549
    ______________________
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Illinois in No. 11-CV-8540, Circuit
    Judge Richard A. Posner.
    ______________________
    PROST, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-
    in-part.
    I join the majority opinion with respect to many of the
    issues discussed therein. However, I respectfully dissent
    with respect to the proper construction of the “heuristic”
    claim terms in the ’949 patent. Additionally, I dissent
    from the majority’s decision to vacate the district court’s
    grant of summary judgment regarding Apple’s request for
    an injunction, as I would affirm that decision. As I also
    depart from the majority’s reasoning while reaching the
    same result on several other issues, I write separately to
    explain my views.
    2                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    I. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE ’949 PATENT
    A. “Means-Plus-Function”
    The majority concludes that the “heuristic” claim
    terms in the ’949 patent have sufficiently definite struc-
    ture to avoid means-plus-function treatment. Majority
    Op. 21. I disagree.
    As an initial matter, the majority misstates our law
    on means-plus-function claiming. Generally speaking, a
    means-plus-function analysis proceeds in two phases:
    first, the court must determine whether the claim term is
    drafted in means-plus-function format such that 
    35 U.S.C. § 112
     ¶ 6 applies. See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control
    Papers Co., 
    208 F.3d 1352
    , 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Before
    a court attempts to analyze what appears to be a means-
    plus-function claim limitation, it must first assure itself
    that such a claim limitation is at issue.”). Only then
    should the court undertake to construe the disputed claim
    term by identifying the “corresponding structure, materi-
    al, or acts described in the specification” to which the
    claim term will be limited. Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD,
    Inc., 
    550 F.3d 1090
    , 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Because
    ‘mechanism for moving said finger’ is a means-plus-
    function limitation, this court must next examine the trial
    court’s identification of ‘the corresponding structure,
    material, or acts described in the specification and equiva-
    lents thereof.’”).
    Although the majority accurately states these legal
    principles, see Majority Op. 9, it fails to faithfully apply
    them. Rather, the majority’s analysis collapses these two
    steps into one, and in doing so, it effectively renders the
    category of non-indefinite means-plus-function claim
    terms a null set.
    The majority correctly states that the proper inquiry
    in determining whether a claim term is drafted in means-
    plus-function format is whether the limitation has “suffi-
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                             3
    ciently definite structure.” Majority Op. 10-11. The
    majority then identifies several ways in which a term may
    be deemed to have such structure, such as when it has “a
    structural definition that is either provided in the specifi-
    cation or generally known in the art,” when it “outlin[es]
    an algorithm, a flowchart, or a specific set of instructions
    or rules,” or when the specification “describ[es] the claim
    limitation’s operation, such as its input, output, or con-
    nections.” Id. at 13-14. By contrast, the majority states,
    “if the claim merely recites a generic nonce word and the
    remaining claim language, specification, prosecution
    history, and relevant external evidence provide no further
    structural description to a person of ordinary skill in the
    art, then the presumption against means-plus-function
    claiming is rebutted.” Id. at 16.
    In effect, what the majority has done is imported the
    second step of the analysis (where you define the scope of
    a means-plus-function claim term based on the corre-
    sponding structure in the specification) into the first step
    (where you identify whether the term is drafted in means-
    plus-function format). The majority’s analysis implies
    that so long as a claim term has corresponding structure
    in the specification, it is not a means-plus-function limita-
    tion. 1 But such a rule would render every means-plus-
    function claim term indefinite. Under the majority’s
    approach, a term would only be deemed a means-plus-
    function limitation if it has no corresponding structure—
    1   Admittedly, the majority suggests that “it is pos-
    sible to find that a claim limitation does not connote
    sufficiently definite structure despite the presence of some
    corresponding structure in the specification.” Majority
    Op. 10. But the majority’s actual analysis of how to
    identify a sufficiently definite structure to avoid means-
    plus-function treatment suggests that the opposite is true.
    4                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    an absurd result that would eviscerate means-plus-
    function claiming. 2
    Applying the proper legal analysis, there can be little
    doubt that the heuristic limitations are means-plus-
    function limitations.
    2   Nothing so clearly demonstrates the majority’s
    confusion on this issue as the cases on which it relies. In
    support of its view that a court must scour the specifica-
    tion for corresponding structure in order to save a claim
    term from means-plus-function treatment, the majority
    cites several cases that were attempting to identify the
    corresponding structure of undisputedly means-plus-
    function claim terms. For example, the majority cites
    Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 
    659 F.3d 1376
    , 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011), for the proposition that a
    claim may contain sufficient structure to avoid means-
    plus-function claiming by reciting an algorithm. Majority
    Op. 13. However, the claim term at issue in that case was
    “means for cross-referencing,” which no one disputed was
    a means-plus-function limitation. This court’s search for
    an algorithm to support that claim term was merely an
    attempt to save the means-plus-function term from indef-
    initeness. See Typhoon Touch, 
    659 F.3d at 1385-86
    . The
    same is true of Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 
    523 F.3d 1323
     (Fed. Cir. 2008), on which the majority also
    relies.   
    Id. at 1340
     (evaluating whether “computer-
    implemented means-plus-function claims” disclosed
    enough of an algorithm to provide the necessary structure
    under § 112, ¶ 6). The majority’s misreading of these
    cases is all the more striking because it is the same error
    the majority accuses the district court of committing in its
    reading of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Party Ltd. v.
    International Game Technology, 
    521 F.3d 1328
    , 1333
    (Fed. Cir. 2008). Majority Op. 12.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                              5
    To begin with, it is true that the absence of the word
    “means” in the disputed claim terms creates a presump-
    tion that these are not means-plus-function limitations.
    See Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp.,
    
    649 F.3d 1350
    , 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011). However, it is
    undisputed that the heuristics limitations recite functions
    performed by the heuristics (e.g., “determining that the
    one or more finger contacts correspond to a command to
    transition from displaying a respective item in a set of
    items to displaying a next item in the set of items”). The
    relevant question therefore is whether the claim fails to
    recite sufficient structure for performing those functions,
    in which case the presumption against means-plus-
    function treatment would be overcome. See 
    id.
    As we have previously explained:
    What is important is whether the term is one that
    is understood to describe structure, as opposed to
    a term that is simply a nonce word or a verbal
    construct that is not recognized as the name of
    structure and is simply a substitute for the term
    “means for.” The court in Personalized Media
    Communications drew the pertinent distinction in
    holding that the term “detector,” although broad,
    is still structural for purposes of section 112 ¶ 6
    because it “is not a generic structural term such
    as ‘means,’ ‘element,’ or ‘device’; nor is it a coined
    term lacking a clear meaning such as ‘widget’ or
    ‘ram-a-fram.’”
    Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 
    382 F.3d 1354
    , 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Personalized Media
    Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 
    161 F.3d 696
    , 704
    (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Following this, we have found that
    terms such as “computing unit,” Inventio, 
    649 F.3d at 1359-60
    , and “soft start circuit,” Power Integrations, Inc.
    v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., 
    711 F.3d 1348
    , 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013), connote sufficient structure to
    6                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    avoid means-plus-function treatment. On the other hand,
    terms such as “colorant selection mechanism,” Massachu-
    setts Institute of Technology v. Abacus Software, 
    462 F.3d 1344
    , 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and “mechanism for
    moving said finger,” Welker Bearing, 
    550 F.3d at 1095-97
    ,
    have failed to recite sufficient structure to avoid means-
    plus-function treatment.
    The term heuristic, which the district court construed
    as “rules to be applied to data to assist in drawing infer-
    ences from that data,” is a vague concept that does not
    connote known, physical structure in the same way as the
    terms “computing unit” or “circuit.” Rather, the term
    heuristic is much more similar to the imprecise terms
    “mechanism,” “means,” and “element.” Therefore, I would
    affirm the district court’s conclusion that the heuristic
    limitations are subject to means-plus-function treatment.
    If, as the majority concludes—in my view incorrect-
    ly—our precedent dictates that the “heuristic” limitations
    in the ’949 patent are not subject to means-plus-function
    treatment, then perhaps it is time to revisit the issue of
    when claim language invokes § 112 ¶ 6, particularly for
    computer-implemented inventions. As explained above, I
    see no real difference between the following two claim
    limitations:
    a next item means for determining that the one or
    more finger contacts correspond to a command to
    transition from displaying a respective item in a
    set of items to displaying a next item in the set of
    items; and
    a next item heuristic for determining that the one
    or more finger contacts correspond to a command
    to transition from displaying a respective item in
    a set of items to displaying a next item in the set
    of items.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           7
    The first limitation would surely be construed as a means-
    plus-function limitation. Yet, although the second limita-
    tion provides no more real structure than the first, the
    majority concludes that it is outside the realm of § 112
    ¶ 6.
    That one minor drafting decision greatly expands the
    scope of the claim limitation because the claim is not
    limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the
    patent specification. Indeed, under the majority’s view,
    this case provides a stark example of how patent appli-
    cants are able to claim broad functionality without being
    subject to the restraints imposed by § 112 ¶ 6. As inter-
    preted by the majority, the “next item heuristic” limita-
    tion in claim 1 covers any heuristic used by a touch-screen
    device to determine that “one or more finger contacts
    correspond to a command to transition from displaying a
    respective item in a set of items to displaying a next item
    in the set of items.” And yet, it is undisputed that the
    patent specification discloses only two such heuristics: a
    swipe from right to left and a tap on the right side of the
    screen. In fact, the majority relied on exactly those two
    heuristics as the necessary “structure” that removed this
    claim term from the means-plus-function realm altogeth-
    er. Majority Op. 18. 3
    Professor Lemley has recently written on the issue of
    functional claiming in software patents. Mark A. Lemley,
    Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming,
    2013 WIS. L. REV. 905 (2013). He acknowledges this
    court’s recent case law in which we have been “vigilant in
    3    Oddly, in defining “heuristic,” the majority states
    that it “does not include all means for performing the
    recited function.” Majority Op. 17. But of course, once
    this court has ruled that the term is not a means-plus-
    function limitation, that term can indeed be construed so
    broadly.
    8                               APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    limiting software patentees who write claims in means-
    plus-function format to the particular algorithms that
    implement those claims.” Id. at 926. However, he notes
    that in many cases involving software patents, we have
    not treated claims as means-plus-function claims at all,
    leading to problems of overbroad patents:
    The presence of structure in the form of “a com-
    puter” or “a processor” or even “the Internet” has
    led the Federal Circuit to give these claims control
    over the claimed function however implemented.
    As a result, software patents have circumvented
    the limits the 1952 Act places on functional claim-
    ing. The result has been a plethora of software
    patents claimed not on the basis of the technology
    the patentee actually developed, but on the basis
    of the function that technology performs. Those
    claims aren’t limited to or commensurate with
    what the patentee invented, and they are accord-
    ingly the ones that patent plaintiffs tend to assert
    against defendants whose systems bear little re-
    semblance to what the patentee actually invent-
    ed. . . . [U]nder this functional claiming rubric the
    software patents with the least actual technical
    content end up with the broadest claims: “Its mo-
    nopoly breadth is a function of its lack of technical
    specification.”
    Id. at 926-28 (footnotes omitted) (quoting Christina Bo-
    hannan & Herbert Hovenkamp, Creation Without Re-
    straint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation 125
    (2012)); see also id. at 905 (“[P]atentees claim to own not a
    particular machine, or even a particular series of steps for
    achieving a goal, but the goal itself. The resulting over-
    broad patents overlap and create patent thickets.”). I
    believe Professor Lemley raises valid concerns about this
    court’s means-plus-function jurisprudence as it relates to
    computer-implemented inventions. Although the majority
    here did not base its conclusion on such generic structural
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           9
    terms as “a computer” or “a processor,” the end result is
    the same: Apple’s ’949 patent is construed broadly to
    cover the function performed by the heuristics, not the
    specific heuristics disclosed in the specification. This
    outcome should compel our court to reconsider when we
    treat functional claims as means-plus-function claims.
    B. Corresponding Structure
    Because I would affirm the district court’s conclusion
    that the heuristics limitations are means-plus-function
    limitations, I would therefore reach Apple’s alternative
    argument regarding the corresponding structure for the
    term “next item heuristic.”
    The ’949 patent specification contains two examples of
    a next item heuristic: a tap on the right side of the
    touchscreen and a right-to-left horizontal swipe. See,
    e.g., ’949 patent col. 34 ll. 12-16 (“In some embodiments,
    the user can also initiate viewing of the next image by
    making a tap gesture 1620 on the right side of the image.
    In some embodiments, the user can also initiate viewing
    of the next image by making a swipe gesture 1616 from
    right to left on the image.” (emphases added)). Neverthe-
    less, the district court rejected the horizontal swipe as
    corresponding structure for the claimed next item heuris-
    tic. The district court reasoned that a horizontal finger
    swipe fell within the scope of another claimed heuristic—
    namely the “two-dimensional screen translation heuristic”
    in the prior claim limitation. The district court did not
    see how “the same user finger movement [could be] un-
    derstood to communicate two separate commands.” J.A.
    93. Therefore, the court limited the next item heuristic’s
    corresponding structure to “a heuristic that uses as one
    input a user’s finger tap on the right side of the device’s
    touch screen.” J.A. 94.
    Apple argues—and I agree—that the district court
    failed to consider that the heuristics might apply in
    different scenarios. For example, in describing the photo
    10                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    album application depicted in Figure 16A of the ’949
    patent, the specification explains that the user can “initi-
    ate viewing of the next image by making a swipe gesture
    1616 from right to left on the image.” ’949 patent col. 34
    ll. 14-16. The specification goes on to explain, however,
    that “if just a portion of image 1606 is displayed, in re-
    sponse to detecting a finger drag or swipe (e.g., 1626), the
    displayed portion of the image is translated in accordance
    with the direction of the drag or swipe gesture (e.g.,
    vertical, horizontal, or diagonal translation).” Id. at col.
    35 ll. 19-24. In other words, a horizontal swipe will be
    treated differently depending on whether a full image is
    displayed or the user has zoomed in on a portion of the
    image. There is nothing in the claim language that
    requires that the “two-dimensional screen translation
    heuristic” and “next item heuristic” apply in the same
    context. Therefore, I would reverse the district court’s
    decision to limit the corresponding structure to a finger
    tap on the right side of the screen, and would reverse the
    grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for the
    accused products that use a “swipe” gesture as a next
    item heuristic.
    II. ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO
    THE ’949 PATENT
    While I concur in the judgment reversing and re-
    manding the district court’s exclusion of the testimony of
    Apple’s expert, Brian Napper, based on his erroneous
    claim construction, I write separately to note my agree-
    ment with the district court that Napper’s reliance on the
    Magic Trackpad was inherently unreliable.
    The majority concludes that the district court erred in
    excluding the testimony of Apple’s expert, Brian Napper,
    for two reasons. First, the district court’s analysis was
    based on an incorrect claim construction. Majority Op.
    42-43. Specifically, the district court criticized Napper for
    failing to isolate the value to consumers of the “tap for
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            11
    next item” functionality, and for failing to consider alter-
    natives to a $35 million royalty that would enable
    Motorola to provide this functionality. See J.A. 112-14.
    These criticisms were based on the district court’s conclu-
    sion that the ’949 patent’s claimed “next item heuristic”
    was a means-plus-function claim that was limited to a tap
    on the right-hand side of the screen to turn to the next
    item. See J.A. 112. The majority determined that this
    claim construction was erroneous because the “next item
    heuristic” was not a means-plus-function limitation.
    Majority Op. 21. As explained above, I would affirm the
    district court’s construction of the “heuristic” claim terms
    as means-plus-function limitations, but would reverse the
    court’s ruling that the scope of the corresponding struc-
    ture for the “next item heuristic” is limited to a tap on the
    right-hand side of the screen. Thus, although I arrive at
    the outcome in a different way, I concur in the majority’s
    conclusion that the district court’s exclusion of Napper’s
    testimony must be reversed and remanded on the basis of
    its erroneous claim construction.
    However, unlike the majority, I do not believe the dis-
    trict court abused its discretion in excluding Napper’s
    testimony as unreliable. The district court determined
    that Napper’s reliance on the Magic Trackpad to calculate
    the value of the claimed functionality was unreliable
    because that product was not a sufficiently comparable
    benchmark. Specifically, the court said:
    Napper’s proposed testimony does not provide a
    reliable basis for inferring the value even of the
    vertical scrolling feature. The fact that many con-
    sumers will pay more for a Magic Trackpad than
    for a mouse tells one nothing about what they will
    pay to avoid occasionally swiping unsuccessfully
    because their swiping finger wasn’t actually verti-
    cal to the screen. Maybe consumers would pay $2,
    but there is no evidence they would, or at least
    none furnished by Napper.
    12                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    J.A. 115.
    It is true that our precedent supports looking to the
    cost of benchmark commercial products in determining
    the value of a defendant’s infringement. See, e.g., i4i Ltd.
    P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 
    598 F.3d 831
    , 853-56 (Fed. Cir.
    2010). However, as even Apple concedes, the Trackpad
    “contains none of the function asserted from the ’949
    patent.” Motorola Response Br. 39; see also Apple Reply
    Br. 70 (acknowledging that “[t]hat is true”). Napper
    therefore began his analysis from a highly questionable
    starting point. And because the Trackpad does not con-
    tain any of the claimed functionality, the discounts Nap-
    per applied to get from $20 to $2 (supposedly because the
    Trackpad contains more features than those claimed by
    the ’949 patent) appear to be completely arbitrary. Ac-
    cordingly, I do not believe the district court abused its
    discretion in concluding that Napper’s proposed testimony
    failed to provide a reliable basis for inferring the value of
    the claimed functionality. On remand, I do not think it
    would be reversible error for the district court to again
    prohibit Apple from relying on such unreliable testimony.
    III. APPLE’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    The district court granted summary judgment that
    Apple was not entitled to an injunction for infringement of
    the ’949, ’263, and ’647 patents. The majority vacates the
    grant of summary judgment—apparently for all three
    patents—because of its reversal of the claim construction
    for the ’949 patent. Majority Op. 69-70. I respectfully
    dissent, and would affirm the grant of summary judgment
    for all three patents.
    Apple argues that it presented ample evidence with
    respect to the eBay factors outlined above to survive
    summary judgment. I will only address the first injunc-
    tion factor—irreparable harm—because I view it as
    dispositive.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           13
    Apple argues that it is being irreparably harmed by
    Motorola’s infringement because sales of Motorola’s
    infringing products are causing Apple to lose market
    share and downstream sales. 4 But in order to rely on lost
    market share and downstream sales to show irreparable
    harm, Apple must provide more than evidence showing
    merely that Motorola is taking market share from Apple.
    Rather, Apple must be able to show a causal nexus be-
    tween the inclusion of the allegedly infringing features in
    Motorola’s phones and the alleged harm to Apple. See
    Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1360-61; Apple Inc. v. Samsung
    Elecs., 
    678 F.3d 1314
    , 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Apple I)
    (“Sales lost to an infringing product cannot irreparably
    harm a patentee if consumers buy that product for rea-
    sons other than the patented feature. If the patented
    feature does not drive the demand for the product, sales
    would be lost even if the offending feature were absent
    from the accused product.”).
    The district court found that Apple had no evidence
    linking Apple’s lost market share and downstream sales
    to the inclusion of the allegedly infringing features in
    Motorola’s phones. See J.A. 152 (“Apple’s ‘feel good’
    theory does not indicate that infringement of these claims
    (if they were infringed) reduced Apple’s sales or market
    4    Apple also argues that a finding of irreparable
    harm is supported by evidence showing that Apple has a
    policy against licensing competitors to practice the three
    asserted patents. Apple’s willingness to license the as-
    serted patents is, of course, relevant to the second injunc-
    tion factor—the inadequacy of legal remedies to
    compensate for irreparable harm. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v.
    Samsung Elecs. Co., 
    735 F.3d 1352
    , 1369-71 (Fed. Cir.
    2013) (Apple III). However, I am not aware of any cases
    establishing that a policy against licensing patents can
    show irreparable harm in the first place.
    14                                APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    share, or impaired consumer goodwill toward Apple
    products.”). Rather, the district court found that “Apple is
    complaining that Motorola’s phones as a whole ripped off
    the iPhone as a whole,” which the court explained was
    insufficient because “Motorola’s desire to sell products
    that compete with the iPhone is a separate harm—and a
    perfectly legal one—from any harm caused by patent
    infringement.” 
    Id. at 153
    .
    Apple contends that its evidence raises a genuine is-
    sue as to whether the allegedly infringing features are
    drivers of consumer demand for Motorola’s products. I
    disagree. First, with respect to the ’949 patent, Apple
    cites consumer survey evidence purporting to show that
    “having a superior touchscreen interface—as opposed to a
    physical keyboard—drives consumers demand for
    smartphones.” Apple Br. 65. This evidence, however,
    says nothing about the specific features claimed in
    the ’949 patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
    Co., 
    695 F.3d 1370
    , 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Apple II). The
    only evidence Apple cites that allegedly relates specifical-
    ly to “the scrolling heuristics claimed by the ’949 patent”
    is testimony from Motorola executives about what they
    thought would be important to consumers. Apple Br. 66.
    However, we found similar evidence, standing alone, to be
    insufficient to establish a causal nexus in Apple I, ex-
    plaining:
    While the evidence that Samsung’s employees be-
    lieved it to be important to incorporate the pa-
    tented feature into Samsung’s products is
    certainly relevant to the issue of nexus between
    the patent and market harm, it is not dispositive.
    That is because the relevant inquiry focuses on
    the objective reasons as to why the patentee lost
    sales, not on the infringer’s subjective beliefs as to
    why it gained them (or would be likely to gain
    them).
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                            15
    
    678 F.3d at 1327-28
    . Accordingly, I agree with the dis-
    trict court that Apple’s evidence fails to raise a genuine
    issue as to whether the features accused of infringing
    the ’949 patent drive consumer demand for Motorola’s
    phones.
    As for the ’263 patent, Apple cites studies and surveys
    purporting to show that the claimed invention facilitated
    the development of popular apps for the iPhone and iPad,
    which in turn helped make Apple’s devices so popular.
    But Apple does not cite any similar studies for consumers
    of Motorola’s products. Even assuming the evidence
    shows that the ’263 patent is a driver of demand for
    Apple’s products, that does not mean the ’263 patent is a
    driver of demand for Motorola’s products. See Apple II,
    695 F.3d at 1376. Apple’s only other evidence for the ’263
    patent allegedly shows Motorola’s subjective beliefs that
    using “Apple’s simplification of streaming technology”
    would help it gain sales. Apple Br. 67. Again, however,
    this evidence, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a
    causal nexus between Motorola’s incorporation of the
    allegedly infringing feature and the alleged harm suffered
    by Apple. See Apple I, 
    678 F.3d at 1327-28
    .
    Similarly, with respect to the ’647 patent, Apple cites
    evidence that “Motorola itself” identified the patent’s
    “structure-detection feature” as “a high priority and a
    ‘differentiating’ feature.” Apple Br. 68 (quoting J.A.
    29,857). Apple also cites a newspaper article describing
    the feature as a “cool[] new feature[]” in Apple’s products.
    J.A. 29,893. As with the ’263 patent, this evidence is
    insufficient to establish the requisite nexus.
    For these reasons, I agree with the district court that
    Apple’s evidence fails to raise a genuine issue as to
    whether the allegedly infringing features are drivers of
    consumer demand for Motorola’s products. As a result,
    Apple cannot show that Motorola’s infringement has
    caused it irreparable harm. Apple therefore cannot meet
    16                              APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    the eBay standard for injunctive relief. Accordingly, I
    would affirm the district court’s grant of summary judg-
    ment of no injunctive relief.
    IV. MOTOROLA’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    RELATING TO THE ’898 PATENT
    I concur in the majority’s judgment that Motorola is
    not entitled to an injunction for infringement of the ’898
    patent. Majority Op. 71-73. However, I write separately
    to note my disagreement with the majority’s suggestion
    that an alleged infringer’s refusal to negotiate a license
    justifies the issuance of an injunction after a finding of
    infringement.
    As an initial matter, I agree with the majority that
    there is no need to create a categorical rule that a patent-
    ee can never obtain an injunction on a FRAND-committed
    patent. 5 Id. at 71-72. Rather, FRAND commitment
    should simply be factored into the consideration of the
    eBay framework. Moreover, I agree that a straightfor-
    ward application of the eBay factors does not necessarily
    mean that injunctive relief would never be available for a
    FRAND-committed patent. However, I disagree as to the
    circumstances under which an injunction might be appro-
    priate.
    Motorola argues—and the majority agrees—that an
    injunction might be appropriate where an alleged infring-
    er “unilaterally refuses a FRAND royalty or unreasonably
    5   For what it’s worth, I would note that the district
    court did not apply a per se rule that injunctions are
    unavailable for SEPs. Rather, Judge Posner expressly
    noted that injunctive relief might have been appropriate if
    Apple had “refuse[d] to pay a royalty that meets the
    FRAND requirement.” J.A. 140. Thus, the majority need
    not have suggested that the district court erred insofar as
    it applied such a categorical rule. See Majority Op. 71.
    APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.                           17
    delays negotiations to the same effect.” Id. Motorola
    insists that in the absence of the threat of an injunction,
    an infringer would have no incentive to negotiate a license
    because the worst-case scenario from a patent infringe-
    ment lawsuit is that it would have to pay the same
    amount it would have paid earlier for a license.
    I disagree that an alleged infringer’s refusal to enter
    into a licensing agreement justifies entering an injunction
    against its conduct, for several reasons. First, as Apple
    points out, an alleged infringer is fully entitled to chal-
    lenge the validity of a FRAND-committed patent before
    agreeing to pay a license on that patent, and so should not
    necessarily be punished for less than eager negotiations.
    Second, there are many reasons an alleged infringer
    might prefer to pay a FRAND license rather than under-
    going extensive litigation, including litigation expenses,
    the possibility of paying treble damages or attorney’s fees
    if they are found liable for willful infringement, and the
    risk that the fact-finder may award damages in an
    amount higher than the FRAND rates. Indeed, as
    Motorola itself pointed out, we have previously acknowl-
    edged that a trial court may award an amount of damages
    greater than a reasonable royalty if necessary “to compen-
    sate for the infringement.” Stickle v. Heublein, Inc., 
    716 F.2d 1550
    , 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, if a trial court
    believes that an infringer previously engaged in bad faith
    negotiations, it is entitled to increase the damages to
    account for any harm to the patentee as a result of that
    behavior.
    But regardless, none of these considerations alters the
    fact that monetary damages are likely adequate to com-
    pensate for a FRAND patentee’s injuries. I see no reason,
    therefore, why a party’s pre-litigation conduct in license
    negotiations should affect the availability of injunctive
    relief.
    18                             APPLE INC.   v. MOTOROLA, INC.
    Instead, an injunction might be appropriate where,
    although monetary damages could compensate for the
    patentee’s injuries, the patentee is unable to collect the
    damages to which it is entitled. For example, if an al-
    leged infringer were judgment-proof, a damages award
    would likely be an inadequate remedy. Or, if a defendant
    refused to pay a court-ordered damages award after being
    found to infringe a valid FRAND patent, a court might be
    justified in including an injunction as part of an award of
    sanctions.
    But regardless, these circumstances are not present in
    this case, and I agree with the district court that under
    the facts here, Motorola cannot show either irreparable
    harm or inadequacy of damages. I would therefore affirm
    the district court’s denial of Motorola’s claim for injunc-
    tive relief for the ’898 patent.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons above, I concur in part and dissent in
    part.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-1548, 2012-1549

Judges: Rader, Prost, Reyna

Filed Date: 4/25/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (64)

United States v. Frank Allen, Jr. ( 2001 )

the-massachusetts-institute-of-technology-and-electronics-for-imaging-inc ( 2006 )

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( 1993 )

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael ( 1999 )

Ccs Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation and Its Division ... ( 2002 )

kemco-sales-inc-and-kenneth-r-makowka-v-control-papers-company-inc ( 2000 )

Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc. ( 2002 )

Microsoft Corporation v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., Multi-... ( 2004 )

Smithkline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories ... ( 1991 )

Mas-Hamilton Group v. Lagard, Inc., (Now Known as Masco ... ( 1998 )

I. Melbourne Greenberg, M.D. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. ( 1996 )

Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H. v. Dart Industries, Inc., ... ( 1988 )

Del Mar Avionics, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Quinton ... ( 1987 )

Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Defendant-Cross ( 2003 )

Richard Walker v. Soo Line Railroad Company ( 2000 )

Caterpillar Tractor Co., a California Corporation v. Berco, ... ( 1983 )

Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. ( 2011 )

Milton D. Goldenberg and Immunomedics, Inc. v. Cytogen, Inc.... ( 2004 )

Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana, Inc., Formerly Known as ... ( 2002 )

Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc. ( 2008 )

View All Authorities »