Federal Circuit Overturns $166M Finesse Verdict, Citing 'Confusing' Expert Testimony
A precedential opinion in Finesse v. AT&T
In a precedential decision that is a powerful reminder that patent cases are won or lost on the strength of the evidence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a staggering $166 million jury verdict against AT&T and Nokia. In Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (24-1039), the court found that the patentee’s infringement case was built on a foundation of expert testimony that was not only confusing and self-contradictory but ultimately failed to constitute the substantial evidence required to support the jury’s findings (Slip Op, pp. 9, 14).
The ruling reverses the lower court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and underscores that even a massive trial victory can be undone by an apparent failure to meticulously prove every element of infringement.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute centered on technology designed to mitigate a persistent problem in radio communications: signal interference. Finesse Wireless LLC (”Finesse”) owns two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,134 (the ’134 patent) and 9,548,775 (the ’775 patent), that disclose methods for canceling out interference caused by “intermodulation products” (IMPs). These are unwanted new frequencies created when radio transmit signals interact with passive obstacles like metal fences or corroded connectors (Slip Op, p. 2). This specific type of interference is known as passive intermodulation (PIM).
Finesse brought suit in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that AT&T infringed the patents by using Nokia-made radios equipped with a PIM cancellation feature. After a trial, the jury sided with Finesse, finding the asserted claims of both patents valid and infringed, and it awarded $166,303,391 in lump-sum damages for the life of the patents (p. 3).
AT&T and Nokia (who had intervened in the case) moved for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement, arguing that Finesse had failed to present sufficient evidence. Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap of the district court denied the motions, and the defendants appealed to the Federal Circuit (p. 3).
The Court’s Analysis: Unpacking the Failure of Proof
The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of JMOL de novo, applying the Fifth Circuit’s standard: a jury verdict must stand unless “the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that ... reasonable jurors could not arrive at any contrary conclusion” (p. 3, citing Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 461 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Here, the panel concluded that Finesse’s evidence fell well short of this bar for both patents.
The ’134 Patent: Sampling a Signal Before It Exists
The core of the infringement theory for the ’134 patent rested on a claim limitation requiring the accused radio to sample a passband of signals that includes both “signals of interest” and “interference generating signals.” At trial, Finesse’s expert, Dr. Jonathan Wells, relied on a Nokia technical diagram to explain how the accused radios met this limitation (p. 5).
Initially, Dr. Wells testified that the “interference generating signals” corresponded to a pathway on the diagram labeled the “modeled PIM path” (p. 6). This theory, however, contained a fatal flaw exposed during cross-examination.
The diagram showed that the “modeled PIM path” was created digitally after the initial radio signal was sampled by a component called the RF ADC (pp. 6, 7). In other words, the expert’s theory required the radio to sample a signal that had not yet been generated—a physical impossibility.
When confronted with this contradiction, Dr. Wells’s testimony faltered. He attempted to pivot, suggesting other signals on the diagram (labeled x1 and x2) met the claim limitations, but he never clearly mapped these signals to the specific claim terms and repeatedly reverted to his original, flawed explanation (pp. 6-7). The Federal Circuit found this testimony insufficient to support the verdict. In a pointed critique, the court stated:
This sort of confusing change of course is not sufficient to support the jury verdict. When the party with the burden of proof, such as Finesse, rests its case on an expert’s self-contradictory testimony, we may conclude the evidence is insufficient to satisfy that standard (p. 9).
Because the expert failed to provide a coherent and technically sound explanation of how the accused devices met a key claim limitation, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could have found infringement. The denial of JMOL for the ’134 patent was reversed (p. 9).
The ’775 Patent: A Failure to Count to Seven
The infringement case for the ’775 patent failed for a similar, though distinct, reason: a simple failure to prove the accused devices performed all the steps required by the claims. Representative claim 1 of the ’775 patent requires the generation of an interference cancellation signal by performing seven specific digital multiplications of three signals, S1, S2, and S3 (p. 10).
Once again, Dr. Wells relied on a Nokia technical document. However, that document only disclosed three distinct multiplication operations—not the seven explicitly recited in the claim (p. 13). Critically, Dr. Wells never testified to the jury how those three operations could be mapped onto, or repeated to satisfy, the claim’s requirement for seven specific multiplications (pp. 13-14).
Finesse attempted to salvage its theory on appeal by providing a new mapping and arguing at oral argument that Nokia’s documents actually showed ten multiplications, from which the claimed seven could be found (p. 14). The Federal Circuit was unmoved, noting that this evidence and mapping were never presented to the jury (p. 14).
Since the trial record lacked any evidence demonstrating that the accused radios perform all seven multiplications, the court found the infringement verdict for the ’775 patent was also unsupported by substantial evidence and reversed the denial of JMOL (p. 14). All damage awards were vacated (p. 15).
Key Takeaways and Practical Implications
This decision offers several crucial lessons for patent practitioners, litigators, and IP owners:
Expert Testimony Must Be Rock-Solid: The entire $166 million verdict was undone by expert testimony that could not withstand scrutiny. This opinion illustrates that an expert’s theory of infringement must be logically consistent, technically sound, and clearly articulated. A confusing or self-contradictory expert can be a fatal liability.
Meticulous Claim Mapping is Non-Negotiable: It is not sufficient for an expert to generally point to an accused product and declare infringement. There must be a rigorous, element-by-element mapping of the claim limitations to the features of the accused device. Dr. Wells’s failure to correctly map the signals for the ’134 patent and to account for all seven multiplications for the ’775 patent—at trial and in front of the jury—proved to be the downfall of Finesse’s case.
Cross-Examination Remains a Powerful Tool: The appellants effectively dismantled the infringement theory for the ’134 patent by identifying a technical contradiction. Based on the significant quotes, the contradiction was pointed out during cross-examination, while Dr. Wells was on the stand. This highlights the importance of deep technical diligence and precise questioning in exposing weaknesses in an opponent’s case. Timing is also invaluable as the contradictory testimony was laid out during trial as groundwork for potential post-verdict motions and appeals.
The Record Is Closed at Trial: Arguments, evidence, or claim mappings developed for an appeal will not save a verdict—for either party—if they were not presented to the jury. The sufficiency of the evidence is judged based on what the jury saw and heard, not on post-hoc rationalizations.
Conclusion
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Finesse Wireless is a significant victory for accused infringers and a cautionary tale for patentees. It reinforces the principle that proving patent infringement requires more than just a persuasive expert or a favorable jury; it demands clear, substantial, and technically coherent evidence for every single claim element.
By vacating the massive damages award based on a fundamental failure of proof, the court has reaffirmed the stringent evidentiary standards that underpin patent law and protect innovators from infringement claims that lack a solid factual basis (p. 15).
This opinion provides a clear takeaway for litigation strategy: the only way to secure a verdict that lasts is through rigorous preparation and expert testimony that is beyond reproach.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.