Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 99 PageID# 22460
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 99 PagelD# 22460
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 99 PageID# 22461
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR ASSOCIATION
`
`MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Last Edited: May 2020
`
` ©
`
` Federal Circuit Bar Association 2020
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 99 PageID# 22462
`
`Acknowledgement
`
`
`
`
`
`The Association thanks the Patent Litigation Committee and in particular the Jury Instruction
`Subcommittee for their efforts in creating these Model Patent Jury Instructions.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 99 PageID# 22463
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A.1
`
`Preliminary Instructions ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`WHAT A PATENT IS AND HOW ONE IS OBTAINED ................................................ 2
`
`A.2
`
`Preliminary Instructions ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS ..................................................................................... 4
`
`A.3
`
`Preliminary Instructions ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`PATENT AT ISSUE ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.4
`
`Preliminary Instructions ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`OVERVIEW OF APPLICABLE LAW .............................................................................. 6
`
`A.5
`
`Preliminary Instructions ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`OUTLINE OF TRIAL ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`B.1
`
`Summary of Contentions .................................................................................................. 11
`
`SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS ................................................................................... 11
`
`B.2
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`2.1
`
`PATENT CLAIMS ............................................................................................... 12
`
`B.2
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 14
`
`2.1a
`
`INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT CLAIMS ................................................ 14
`
`B.2
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 15
`
`2.3a SECTION 112, PARAGRAPH 6/f ....................................................................... 15
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 17
`
`3.1
`
`INFRINGEMENT GENERALLY........................................................................ 17
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 18
`
`3.1a DIRECT INFRINGEMENT BY “LITERAL INFRINGEMENT” ...................... 18
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 19
`
`3.1b DIRECT INFRINGEMENT BY “LITERAL INFRINGEMENT” OF
`SECTION .............................................................................................................. 19
`i
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 99 PageID# 22464
`
`112, PARAGRAPH 6/f CLAIM REQUIREMENTS ....................................................... 19
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 21
`
`3.1c DIRECT INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
`EQUIVALENTS ................................................................................................... 21
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 23
`
`3.1d
`
`[DELETED] LIMITATIONS ON DIRECT INFRINGEMENT UNDER
`THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS ............................................................... 23
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 24
`
`3.2
`
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT—ACTIVE INDUCEMENT ............................... 24
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 26
`
`3.3
`
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT—CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT........... 26
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 27
`
`3.4
`
`INFRINGEMENT THROUGH THE SUPPLY OF COMPONENTS
`FROM UNITED STATES FOR COMBINATION ABROAD ............................ 27
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 29
`
`3.5
`
`INFRINGEMENT BY SALE, OFFER FOR SALE, USE, OR
`IMPORTATION OF A PRODUCT MADE OUTSIDE THE UNITED
`STATES BY PATENTED PROCESS .................................................................. 29
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 30
`
`3.6
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT: ONE OR MORE SYSTEM COMPONENTS
`LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES ................................................. 30
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 31
`
`3.7
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT: ACTS OF MULTIPLE PARTIES MUST BE
`COMBINED TO MEET ALL METHOD CLAIM LIMITATIONS ................... 31
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 33
`
`3.8
`
`[DELETED] INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT: ACCUSED INFRINGER
`PRACTICES SOME CLAIMED STEPS AND ANOTHER PRACTICES
`THE REMAINING STEPS .................................................................................. 33
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 34
`
`3.9
`
`[DELETED] INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT: ACCUSED INFRINGER
`ALLEGEDLY INDUCES OTHERS TO COLLECTIVELY PRACTICE
`ii
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 99 PageID# 22465
`
`ALL CLAIMED STEPS ....................................................................................... 34
`
`B.3
`
`Infringement ...................................................................................................................... 35
`
`3.10 WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT .............................................................................. 35
`
`B.4 Validity ............................................................................................................................. 37
`
`4.1
`
`INVALIDITY—BURDEN OF PROOF ............................................................... 37
`
`B.4.2 Validity—Adequacy of Patent Specification .................................................................... 38
`
`4.2a WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT .................................................... 38
`
`B.4.2 Validity—Adequacy of Patent Specification .................................................................... 40
`
`4.2b ENABLEMENT ................................................................................................... 40
`
`B.4.2 Validity—Adequacy of Patent Specification .................................................................... 42
`
`4.2c
`
`[DELETED] BEST MODE .................................................................................. 42
`
`B.4.3 Validity—The Claims ....................................................................................................... 43
`
`4.3a-1 PRIOR ART (If Not in Dispute) ............................................................................ 43
`
`B.4.3 Validity—The Claims ....................................................................................................... 44
`
`4.3a-2 PRIOR ART (For Patents Having an Effective Filing Date Before March
`16, 2013) ............................................................................................................... 44
`
`B.4.3 Validity—The Claims ....................................................................................................... 47
`
`4.3a-3 PRIOR ART (For Patents Having an Effective Filing Date on or After
`March 16, 2013) .................................................................................................... 47
`
`B.4.3 Validity—The Claims ....................................................................................................... 48
`
`4.3b-1 ANTICIPATION ................................................................................................... 48
`
`B.4.3 Validity—The Claims ....................................................................................................... 50
`
`4.3c OBVIOUSNESS ................................................................................................... 50
`
`B.4.3 Validity—The Claims ....................................................................................................... 52
`
`4.3c(i) LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .......................................................................... 52
`
`4.3c(ii) SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................... 52
`
`B.4.3 Validity—The Claims ....................................................................................................... 54
`iii
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 99 PageID# 22466
`
`4.3d
`
`INVENTORSHIP ................................................................................................. 54
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 55
`
`5.1
`
`DAMAGES—INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 55
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 57
`
`5.2
`
`LOST PROFITS—“BUT FOR” TEST ................................................................. 57
`
`LOST PROFITS—DEMAND .......................................................................................... 58
`
`LOST PROFITS—NONINFRINGING SUBSTITUTES—ACCEPTABILITY ............. 58
`
`LOST PROFITS—NONINFRINGING SUBSTITUTES—AVAILABILITY ................ 58
`
`LOST PROFITS—CAPACITY ....................................................................................... 59
`
`LOST PROFITS—AMOUNT OF PROFIT ..................................................................... 59
`
`LOST PROFITS—MARKET SHARE ............................................................................ 59
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 61
`
`5.3
`
`LOST PROFITS—COLLATERAL SALES ........................................................ 61
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 62
`
`5.4
`
`LOST PROFITS—PRICE EROSION .................................................................. 62
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 63
`
`5.5
`
`REASONABLE ROYALTY—ENTITLEMENT ................................................ 63
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 64
`
`5.6
`
`REASONABLE ROYALTY—DEFINITION ..................................................... 64
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 65
`
`5.7
`
`DAMAGES - LUMP SUM VS. RUNNING ROYALTY .................................... 65
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 66
`
`5.8
`
`REASONABLE ROYALTY—RELEVANT FACTORS .................................... 66
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 69
`
`5.9
`
`DAMAGES – COMPARABLE AGREEMENTS................................................ 69
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 70
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 99 PageID# 22467
`
`5.10 DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF DAMAGES—PRODUCTS ....................... 70
`
`B.4
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 72
`
`5.11 DAMAGES – REASONABLE ROYALTY – FAIR, REASONABLE, AND
`NON-DISCRIMINATORY TERMS ................................................................... 72
`
`B.5
`
`Patent Damages ................................................................................................................. 74
`
`5.12 DAMAGES - APPORTIONMENT .......................................................................... 74
`
`C.
`
`Appendix ........................................................................................................................... 76
`
`GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................. 76
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 99 PageID# 22468
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,
`182 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................................ 39
`
`Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.,
`228 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................................... 29, 41
`
`AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac,
`344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................................ 41
`
`Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc.,
`174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 15, 20, 22
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................................. 46
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. ITC,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................................ 26
`
`Allvoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................................... 15, 20
`
`In re Alton,
`76 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................................ 38, 39
`
`Am. Med. Sys. v. Med. Eng’g Corp.,
`6 F.3d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................................................. 70, 71
`
`Am. Seating Co. v. USSC Group,
`514 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................ 58
`
`Am. Stock Exch., LLC v. Mopex, Inc.,
`250 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...................................................................................................... 46
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,
`872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 787 (2019) ....................................................... 39
`
`Apotex U.S.A., Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
`254 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................................... 15, 20
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................. 31, 36, 50, 53
`vi
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 99 PageID# 22469
`
`Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ................................................................................................ 39
`
`Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.,
`377 U.S. 476 (1964) ........................................................................................................................... 26, 57
`
`Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc.,
`501 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................ 41
`
`Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd.,
`499 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................ 53
`
`In re Bartfeld,
`925 F.2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Bayer AG v. Housey Pharms., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................................ 29
`
`BIC Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing Int’l, Inc.,
`1 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................. 57, 58, 60, 62
`
`Buildex, Inc. v. Kason Indus., Inc.,
`849 F.2d 1461 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................................ 37
`
`Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................................ 46, 54
`
`Calico Brand, Inc. v. Ameritek Imps., Inc.,
`527 F. App’x. 987 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................................... 56
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med.,
`576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................................ 28
`
`Carella v. Starlight Archery,
`804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................................. 57
`
`Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................................ 41
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................................ 39
`
`Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.,
`145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................................... 16, 20
`
`Circuit Check, Inc. v. QXQ Inc.,
`795 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................................ 53
`
`Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc.,
`560 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................................ 45
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) ................................................................................................................................. 25
`vii
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 99 PageID# 22470
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
`720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................................ 25
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave., Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................ 53
`
`Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................................... 18, 20
`
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`CSIRO v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................................... 73, 74
`
`Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs.
`138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................................ 52
`
`D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp.,
`714 F.2d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`501 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................ 53
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................................ 58
`
`Devices for Med., Inc. v. Boehl,
`822 F.2d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................................................................................................... 69, 70
`
`Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos.,
`16 F.3d 394 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc.,
`341 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................................ 56
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................................ 25
`
`E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC,
`921 F.3d 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Mayanez Enters., Inc.,
`No. 2018-2215, slip op. (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................... 31, 36
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp.,
`376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................................ 54
`viii
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 99 PageID# 22471
`
`Energy Transp. Group, Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S/,
`697 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................................ 67
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc.,
`323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................................. 39
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`352 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................................... 57, 62
`
`Esai Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Ltd.,
`533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................ 52
`
`Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC,
`350 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................................ 25
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ................................................................................................................................. 22
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................................... 45, 49
`
`Finnigan Corp. v. ITC,
`180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc.,
`455 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................................ 45
`
`Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................................ 59
`
`Fromson v. W. Litho Plate & Supply Co.,
`853 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................ 63
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Gargoyles, Inc. v. United States,
`113 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................................ 57
`
`Garretson v. Clark,
`111 U.S. 120 (1884) ................................................................................................................................. 75
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
`134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................ 39
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) .................................................................................................. passim
`
`In re Giacomini,
`612 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................................ 45
`ix
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 13 of 99 PageID# 22472
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2012) ..................................................................................................................... 25, 28, 36
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................................... 64, 68
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ..................................................................................................................................... 52
`
`Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co.,
`185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................................................... 56, 58
`
`Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co.,
`339 U.S. 605 (1950) ................................................................................................................................. 22
`
`Gyromat Corp. v. Champion Spark Plug Co.,
`735 F.2d 549 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................................................ 57, 59
`
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................................. 46
`
`Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923, __ U.S. __(2016) ............................................................................................. 4, 9, 11, 36
`
`Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd.,
`208 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`139 S. Ct. 628 (2019) ......................................................................................................................... 45, 47
`
`Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc.,
`106 F.3d 976 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................................. 54
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................................ 26
`
`Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States,
`140 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................ 22
`
`Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.,
`802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................................................... 37, 53
`
`In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................ 53
`
`Idenix Pharms. LLC v. Gilead Scis. Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................................ 40
`
`Insituform Techs., Inc. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.,
`385 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................................ 25
`
`Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,
`331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................................. 56
`x
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 836-6 Filed 01/21/22 Page 14 of 99 PageID# 22473
`
`Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite Pictures Inc.,
`274 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................................... 22, 64
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................................ 45
`
`J.A. LaPorte, Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co.,
`787 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................................ 46
`
`Johnson & Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Serv. Co.,
`285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................................ 22
`
`Kalman v. Berlyn Corp.,
`914 F.2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................................ 62
`
`Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`465 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .....................