Federal Circuit IP

Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC

By Caroline L. Desmond Published October 15, 2025

Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2024-1039, 2025 WL 2713518

(Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2025) (Moore, C.J., Linn, J., Cunningham, J.)

Issue:
At issue was whether plaintiff’s contradictory expert testimony supported the jury’s finding of infringement and damages award.

Facts/Procedural Posture:
Finesse sued AT&T and Nokia in the E.D. Texas alleging infringement of two patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,134 and 9,548,775) which generally relate to methods of reducing signal interference in wireless communications. A jury found both patents valid and infringed and awarded $166 million in lump-sum damages. Defendants moved for JMOL on noninfringement, JMOL on damages (or in the alternative, a new trial), all of which the district court denied. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of JMOL of noninfringement for all asserted claims and vacated the damages award.

Holding:
The Federal Circuit held there was no substantial evidence of infringement where plaintiff’s expert’s testimony was contradictory and insufficient to support the jury’s finding for either patent.

Reasoning:
For the ’134 patent, the claims require sampling “a passband of received signals” that includes both “signals of interest” and “interference generating signals.” Plaintiff’s expert failed to clearly identify the claimed signals in the accused radios, and the expert also mapped “interference generating signals” to an aspect of the accused radios generated after sampling occurs. The Court reasoned that such contradictory testimony is insufficient to satisfy plaintiff’s burden of proof and no reasonable jury could have found for plaintiff based on it.

For the ’775 patent, the asserted claims require seven specific signal multiplications using three signals (S1, S2, S3) to generate cancellation signals. Nokia technical documents showed as few as three or as many as ten multiplications, but neither scenario was mapped by plaintiff to the seven multiplications claimed during the district court proceedings. Thus, no reasonable jury could have found that element was met.

Key Takeaway:
Expert testimony that is internally inconsistent or contradicted by system operation cannot sustain a verdict. Literal infringement requires evidence expressly establishing that each claimed step actually occurs—courts will not infer missing elements.