Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ntp, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.
Citation: Not availableDocket: 2003-1615
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; December 13, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
NTP, Inc. successfully sued Research In Motion, Ltd. (RIM) for patent infringement regarding RIM's BlackBerry™ system, with a jury awarding NTP $53,704,322.69 in damages. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where Judge James R. Spencer ruled in favor of NTP, leading RIM to appeal the decision. The patents in question included U.S. Patents Nos. 5,436,960, 5,625,670, 5,819,172, 6,067,451, and 6,317,592. The court issued a permanent injunction to prevent further infringement by RIM, although enforcement of the injunction was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Federal Circuit found that while the district court made an error in interpreting the claim term "originating processor," it did not err in its interpretation of other claim terms. The court affirmed the finding of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), upheld the denial of RIM’s judgment as a matter of law motion, and supported the district court’s discretion regarding evidentiary motions. The appeal resulted in a partial affirmation, partial vacating, and remand for further proceedings. The technology involved integrates traditional electronic mail systems with wireless communication networks, allowing mobile users to receive emails wirelessly, which operates through a "pull" system where users must initiate connections to retrieve their messages. Increased reliance on email and computers in the 1990s led to a growing demand for mobile internet access, particularly among business travelers using portable PCs. Existing remote internet access methods were cumbersome, making it difficult for users to connect to email servers due to challenges in finding telephone jacks in locations such as airports and hotels, which often had internal systems preventing direct access. Complaints from mobile professionals included the inconvenience of carrying laptops, difficulties in finding connections, security negotiations, and high phone costs associated with dialing into corporate servers. The patents-in-suit, developed by inventors Thomas J. Campana, Jr., Michael P. Ponschke, and Gary F. Thelen, include the ’960, ’670, ’172, ’451, and ’592 patents, all tracing back to the parent ’960 patent filed on May 20, 1991. The latest, the ’592 patent, was filed on December 6, 1999, and all retain the same written descriptions as the parent patent. Campana's innovation was the integration of electronic mail systems with RF wireless communications networks, allowing messages to be transmitted wirelessly to a mobile RF receiver. Users can view and store messages on the receiver, later transferring them to a personal computer without the need for the computer to be active or with them at all. However, the patents do not include methods for composing and sending messages from the RF receiver. RIM, a Canadian corporation based in Waterloo, Ontario, offers the BlackBerry system, enabling out-of-office email communication via a wireless device. The system comprises three main components: the BlackBerry handheld unit, email redirector software (including the BlackBerry Enterprise Server, Desktop Redirector, and Internet Redirector), and access to a nationwide wireless network (e.g., Mobitex, DataTAC, GPRS). Utilizing "push" email technology, the system automatically routes messages to the user's device without requiring user initiation. The BlackBerry email solutions include the Desktop solution, where the Desktop Redirector is installed on a personal computer, and the Corporate solution, which involves the BES software on the organizational mail server, serving multiple users. The Internet solution functions similarly but uses Internet Redirector software. All solutions integrate seamlessly with existing email systems, requiring no modifications. In the Desktop solution, new emails are detected by the Desktop Redirector, which retrieves, encrypts, and routes them to the BlackBerry Relay in Canada. The Corporate solution intercepts emails before reaching the user's computer, allowing email redirection even when the computer is off. Users can customize redirection preferences through the BlackBerry Desktop Manager. Emails are transmitted through the BlackBerry Relay, where they are processed and sent to the user's handheld device, allowing for instantaneous notifications of new messages without user action. This "push" architecture eliminates the need for users to manually check for new emails, enhancing efficiency. The BlackBerry handheld also allows users to send emails via an integrated RF transmitter and processor, reversing the receipt process to send messages. Messages composed on a BlackBerry handheld are sent to the user's desktop via the partner and BlackBerry wireless networks, with the BlackBerry email redirector software retrieving the outgoing message from the user's mail server and placing it in the desktop email software. This process ensures that messages appear identical to those sent directly from the desktop, originating from the same email address and showing in the “sent mail” folder. NTP filed suit against RIM on November 13, 2001, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging infringement of over forty claims from its patents related to the BlackBerry system. On August 14, 2002, the district court construed thirty-one disputed claim terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Following this, RIM filed several summary judgment motions for non-infringement and invalidity. The district court denied these motions, while NTP sought partial summary judgment for infringement on four specific patent claims. The court agreed with NTP, granting summary judgment except for claims concerning the BlackBerry series 5810 handheld device. The case proceeded to trial with fourteen claims submitted to the jury, which resulted in a verdict on November 21, 2002, finding RIM liable for direct, induced, and contributory infringement on all asserted claims. The jury deemed the infringement willful, rejecting all of RIM's defenses, and awarded NTP approximately $23 million in damages based on a reasonable royalty rate of 5.7. RIM filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or, alternatively, for a new trial after a jury verdict, but the court denied these requests. On August 5, 2003, the district court ruled in favor of NTP, awarding damages totaling $53,704,322.69 divided as follows: $33 million in compensatory damages, $4 million in attorneys’ fees, $2 million in prejudgment interest, and $14 million in enhanced damages. Additionally, the court imposed a permanent injunction against RIM, prohibiting further manufacture, use, importation, and sale of the accused BlackBerry systems, although this injunction is stayed during the appeal process. RIM subsequently appealed the judgment and injunction, and jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1). During the district court proceedings, RIM was found to have infringed sixteen claims from five patents owned by NTP. These claims include specific claims from the ’960, ’670, ’172, ’451, and ’592 patents, with most being dependent claims. RIM's appeal challenges the infringement judgments, asserting that the district court erred in its claim term constructions, particularly regarding terms like "electronic mail system," "gateway switch," and "originating processor." RIM also contends the court improperly omitted general restrictions on certain claims and failed to accurately construe specific limitations regarding pathways and processor distinctions. The appellate court emphasizes that, due to the patents sharing a common parent application, claim interpretations should be consistent across all asserted patents, referencing legal precedents that support this approach. Claim construction is identified as a legal question subject to de novo review by the appellate court. The claim construction analysis in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. Inc. emphasizes that the starting point for interpreting patent claims is the language of the claims themselves, as defined by the patentee under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Claims should be understood using their ordinary and customary meanings unless there is a clear intent to assign a novel meaning. Various sources can inform this meaning, including the claims, dictionaries, treatises, and the written description, with interpretation framed through the perspective of a person skilled in the art. This approach recognizes that words may carry different meanings depending on context. Following the construction of claim terms, a comparison to the accused device is necessary. The term "electronic mail system" is noted as a disputed term across multiple patents. Claim 1 of the '960 patent serves as an example, detailing a system for transmitting information between processors within an electronic mail system. It describes the roles of various components such as a gateway switch, RF information transmission network, and interface switch, outlining their functions in the transmission process, including the methods of addressing and transmitting originated information to destination processors. The claim specifies both RF and wireline transmission methods, highlighting the system's versatility in information transfer. The district court defined "electronic mail system" as a communication system comprising multiple processors running electronic mail programs, facilitating message exchanges among recognized users. RIM contends there are two interpretations of this term: a broad definition that includes various communication technologies and a narrow one emphasizing "pull" technology, which RIM claims was endorsed by Campana during patent prosecution. RIM further asserts that the term implies a wireline system to differentiate it from prior art. NTP argues that the district court's definition aligns with the written description and that RIM's pull technology requirement contradicts the claim language and Campana's disclosures. NTP points out that RIM did not present its pull technology argument at the Markman hearing, but rather limited its argument to a wireline-only system. The court emphasized that raising new claim constructions for the first time on appeal constitutes waiver, referencing prior case law. Consequently, RIM's attempt to introduce a pull technology limitation at this stage is waived, and the district court’s claim construction, which accommodates various processor configurations and both wireline and RF transmission networks, is upheld as correct. The claims explicitly mention that an "electronic mail system" includes different architectures of processors communicating through wireline or RF connections. The described architecture of processor groups is representative of current technology, with various implementations existing. RIM's assertion that the "electronic mail system" is confined to wireline connections is incorrect. Claim 1 of the 960 patent specifies that the system transmits information between multiple originating and destination processors within the "electronic mail system," without explicitly ruling out wireless connections. The written description clarifies that the "electronic mail system" can include wireless connections. Campana noted that prior electronic mail services were primarily wireline but allowed for the possibility of other connection types. An example cited shows processors connected to the PSTN via both wired and RF communications, supporting the inclusion of wireless links in the system. RIM's argument, which misinterprets the patent text and figures, is rejected. The prosecution history does not contain disclaimers limiting the "electronic mail system" to wireline connections. Although Campana emphasized wireline connections, he did not restrict the definition of "electronic mail system" to wireline only, acknowledging the potential for RF transmissions. Furthermore, while the wireless connections mentioned involve "pull" access, this does not affect the analysis, as RIM has waived arguments for such limitations and maintains a wireline-only stance. Any wireless connection, including a pull connection, is sufficient to counter RIM's argument, leading to the affirmation of the district court's claim construction of "electronic mail system." The term "gateway switch," present only in claims 15, 32, and 34 of the ’960 patent, was contested by RIM, which argued that it is a mechanism maintaining mailboxes for a pull email architecture. The district court defined "gateway switch" as a processor within an electronic mail system connecting other processors and supporting functions like receiving, storing, routing, and forwarding messages. Since RIM's requirement of a "pull" architecture was previously rejected, the court also rejected its argument concerning "gateway switches." The court agreed with the district's construction of "gateway switch." Additionally, there is a dispute over the terms "originating processor" and "originated information" found in the claims of multiple patents, including the ’960 patent. Claim 1 of the ’960 patent describes a system for transmitting originated information from one of several originating processors to destination processors, involving a gateway switch that receives and stores the information before transmission, an RF transmission network, and an interface switch connecting the gateway switch to the RF network. The claim specifies how the originated information is addressed and transmitted within the system. The district court defined "originating processor" as any processor in an electronic mail system that prepares data for transmission, a term present in all asserted claims of the ’960 and ’670 patents. Variants of this term, such as "originating electronic mail" and "originate the electronic mail," are found in other related patents. The court characterized "originated information" as the message text of an email, with a noted exception for a term in a non-disputed patent. RIM contends that "originating processor" should refer specifically to the processor that initiates data transmission, excluding subsequent processors that handle the data. RIM supports its interpretation with dictionary definitions indicating an “initiating” requirement and references the ’960 patent specification, which describes the originating processor as the system component where an email message is composed or inputted. NTP counters that the definition should encompass gateway switches and all processors that run email programming to format and initiate message transmission, arguing that RIM's interpretation overlooks components in the specification that indicate a gateway switch can originate information. The court ultimately concluded that "originating processor" is correctly interpreted as a processor in an email system that initiates the message transmission, clarifying that this does not always mean it is the processor where the email was created. There could be scenarios where a message is composed on one processor and then transferred to another for initiation. The court affirmed the district court's definition of "originated information" as the text of an email message. RIM fails to provide a distinct interpretation of "originated information," which is defined as the text of an email message within the electronic mail system. The district court's claim construction of "originating information" is upheld. Claim 1 of the ’960 patent describes a system for transmitting information from multiple originating processors to destination processors, incorporating components such as a gateway switch and interface switch. The term "originating processor" specifically refers to the source of the email message text, aligning with the system's purpose of transferring this information to intended recipients. The claim outlines separate and independent components within the system, indicating that the "gateway switch" is not included as part of "a plurality of originating processors." The gateway switch's role is to receive the originated information from the originating processor, rather than originating it. A gateway switch does not generate the "originated information." Instead, it receives this information from an "originating processor" and may add additional data to it. The claims of the patent distinguish between two types of information transmitted: "originated information," which is the content of the electronic mail message (analogous to the content of a physical letter), and "address information," which identifies intermediate components or destination processors for the electronic message. Address information is never categorized as "originated information" but is described as supplementary data that can be appended to the information from the originating processor. The patent specifies that address information can be added to originated information, much like how an envelope contains both the letter's text and its address. The originating processor is where the electronic mail message text is input and may also be where some address information is provided. However, in other scenarios, the gateway switch can append further address information after receiving the originated information. For example, when a user types an email, they must provide some destination information, like the recipient's name. The user does not need to understand the specific routing of an email message through the system to reach the intended recipient, John Doe. In the most user-friendly version of the invention, the user only needs to specify the recipient, while the system—via the originating processor or subsequent components like gateway switches—automatically adds the necessary address information. This process is likened to the postal system, where users only provide a destination address, and barcodes may be added to facilitate routing. The term "originating processor" specifically refers to the component that initiates the email message text, distinguishing it from other components that may also generate data, such as gateway switches. The written description clarifies that the "originating processor" is a distinct entity from gateway switches and interface switches, which are separately labeled and claimed. Figure 1 of the ’960 patent illustrates that the originating processor is responsible for generating the email message, which then communicates through a network to gateway switches. The specification emphasizes that the originating processor, where the message text is created, is separate from other system components, and the user inputs the message via commands on the originating processor before it is transmitted to the gateway switch. The excerpt outlines the roles of various components in initiating electronic mail messages within the context of a patented system. It emphasizes that multiple entities, specifically an "originating processor," a "gateway switch," and an "interface switch," can initiate address information. Despite their capability to contribute, the term "originating processor" does not encompass all three components. The specification clarifies that while an electronic mail message requires the entry of text and addresses, these functions can be performed by different components, not limited to the originating processor. For instance, either the originating processor or a gateway switch can append addresses to the message. The text stresses that merely adding destination address information does not qualify a component as an "originating processor." Campana's design is highlighted as user-friendly, requiring minimal information for initiating email transmission. Additionally, the written description illustrates how these components collaborate to incorporate addressing data into the email message, supported visually by Figure 11 of the patent. The excerpt outlines the mechanisms for electronic mail message entry from originating processors within an electronic mail system, detailing the flow of "originated information" from the originating processor to a gateway switch and then to an interface switch. It specifies that the originating processor is responsible for adding destination address data in certain entry methods. In "entry method 1," the originating processor includes this data, while in "entry method 3," the gateway switch adds the wireless destination address after receiving the information from the originating processor. The text clarifies that the terms "gateway switch" and "interface switch" do not refer to the originating processor, which is defined as the initial processor that transmits the email message text into the system. RIM's argument regarding the requirement for "dual pathways" in certain patent claims is presented, stating that at least one destination processor must be reachable through both the email and RF systems. The district court previously addressed this argument, rejecting the notion that the claims implicitly required dual pathways, viewing RIM's assertion as an attempt to impose an unsupported limitation. The court found a "genuine dispute of material fact" and declined to resolve the claim construction issue during a second examination of the parties' arguments. It was determined that the district court erred in failing to address this claim construction issue despite not being bound by a specific timeline for such rulings. In jury trials, the court is obligated to interpret patent claim language as a matter of law rather than leaving it to the jury. The discussion references the ’960 patent, which includes claims related to a RF information transmission network and an electronic mail system. The preamble of claim 1 is significant as it limits the claim, aligning with established precedent that a preamble can limit an invention if it is essential to understanding the claim. This precedent suggests that when both the preamble and the body of a claim define the invention, the defined invention is what is protected by the patent. The limitations in claim 1, including "at least one of a plurality of destination processors" and "electronic mail system," derive from the preamble and are crucial for contextualizing the claim. RIM's argument that claim 1 necessitates that the same destination processor must be part of both the electronic mail system and the RF information transmission network is supported by the language of the patent. RIM contends that the phrase “a RF information transmission network for transmitting originated information to the at least one of the plurality of destination processors” in the context of patent claim 1 specifically refers to the previously mentioned “at least one of a plurality of destination processors” within the electronic mail system. RIM asserts that, due to this antecedent relationship, any destination processor accessible via RF transmission must be part of an electronic mail system, as established in Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp. However, RIM’s argument that this necessitates a non-infringement conclusion is insufficient. They claim that the BlackBerry® system avoids this requirement since BlackBerry handhelds are only reachable through an RF pathway, but provide no evidence to show that these devices lack processors running electronic mail programming or that they are not configured for communication among users. Therefore, RIM's assertion that at least one destination processor must be part of the electronic mail system and accessible by RF transmission does not alone demonstrate non-infringement. Additionally, RIM attempts to argue that the claim requires a “dual pathway” to the same destination processor, a term not specified in the claims but discussed during patent prosecution. Campana distinguished his invention based on the requirement for dual communication paths, which include both telephonic and wireless communications utilizing an interface switch between the electronic mail system and the RF transmission system. The legal implications of RIM's arguments regarding the relationship between the RF receiver and the destination processor, as well as their configuration within the BlackBerry device, remain critical to the infringement analysis. The excerpt outlines the distinction between two pathways defined in the claims of the ’960 patent as discussed during exchanges between Campana and the examiner. The first pathway combines wireless connections in an RF information transmission network with either wireline or wireless connections in the email system, specifically described in claim 1, paragraph two. The second pathway consists solely of wireline connections in the email system, explicitly added to incorporate a dual pathways limitation in claim 1's final paragraph. RIM asserts that at least one destination processor must be accessible via both pathways, which is not supported by the claim language. RIM argues that Campana’s narrow definition of "electronic mail system" during prosecution reinforces its dual pathways claim construction. However, this argument is countered by the conclusion that the term "electronic mail system" is not restricted to wireline-only pathways. NTP contends that there was no disavowal of the dual pathways requirement and that Campana merely distinguished the claimed invention from the purely wireless Zabarsky reference. NTP also notes that the examiner acknowledged the absence of a dual pathways requirement. RIM highlights a passage from the prosecution history that describes the claims as defining a combination of an electronic mail system with an RF information transmission system, which involves both systems transmitting information to a destination processor. The Examiner has failed to demonstrate prior art or reasoning that supports a conclusion of obviousness regarding the claimed dual transmission paths of an electronic mail system and an RF information transmission system. The system involves one path using a telephone network and another path utilizing an interface switch to transmit information to at least one destination processor. RIM's assertion that Campana’s statements imply a disavowal of systems where the same destination processor cannot be reached through both wireline and RF transmissions is incorrect. Campana aimed to distinguish their system from the Zabarsky messaging system, which lacked the capacity for wireline-only message transmission. While Campana recognized that various destination processors could be accessed through either or both systems, there was no limitation placed on requiring access to the same processor via both systems. The relevant prosecution history does not include clear disavowal language that would restrict the claims. The Examiner's “Reasons for Allowance” further affirm that the claims are patentable without necessitating dual transmission pathways to the same destination processor. Thus, there is no requirement under the asserted claims for a dual pathways limitation. Additionally, RIM's argument that certain claims necessitate a distinct RF receiver separate from the destination processor is noted in their summary judgment motion. The limitation of “separate and distinct” as argued by RIM applies to all claims of the ’960, ’670, and ’592 patents, as well as specific claims of the ’451 patent. The court rejected this limitation, noting that while the inventor, Campana, envisioned a mobile RF receiver separate from a destination processor, the claims do not mandate this separation. The specification indicates that the RF receiver's portability is an advantage, allowing it to be used independently of a fixed destination processor. RIM's argument centers on the terms “transfer,” “connected to,” and “coupled to,” which are present in the claims of the relevant patents. However, the court emphasized that there must be a textual link between the claim language and any limitations drawn from the specification. Citing case law, the court stated that a party must identify specific claim terms to support narrowing the patent's scope. RIM's interpretation that the term “transfer” implies physical separation is considered overly broad, as information can be transferred between entities housed together. Independent claim 150 of the ’592 patent details a wireless receiver linked to a mobile processor, which receives electronic mail information after the wireless receiver detects the identification of the wireless device via a broadcast. This claim forms the basis for dependent claims 278 and 287. Similarly, independent claim 301 outlines a communication system with mobile devices that include a wireless device connected to a mobile processor, executing electronic mail programming. The wireless device transmits the received information to the mobile processor after receiving a broadcast and identification of the device. The definition of "connected," as per Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, suggests a physical link but does not necessitate that the mobile processor and wireless receiver be housed separately; they can be linked through various means, including wires or circuit boards. RIM's challenge regarding the term “additional processor outside an electronic mail system” is noted, emphasizing that this term is absent from the claims currently in appeal. RIM argues for its construction based solely on the district court's prior interpretation, which is deemed insufficient for this court to address. The principle established is that only claim terms in controversy require construction. The court declines to evaluate the correctness of the district court's interpretation of the “additional processor” term. RIM presents three arguments against the district court's infringement judgment: (1) it contends the court erred in claim construction, asserting that under proper interpretation, its products do not infringe; (2) it argues that the location of the BlackBerry Relay in Canada exempts it from liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271. RIM contends that the jury's verdict of infringement was unsupported by substantial evidence, arguing that the district court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for non-infringement. In determining infringement, the court must first accurately construe the asserted claims and then compare these claims to the allegedly infringing products. The district court's jury instructions included an incorrect construction of the term "originating processor," raising the issue of whether the verdict should be overturned for the affected claims. To successfully challenge a jury verdict due to erroneous instructions, a party must demonstrate: (1) timely objection to the instructions, (2) that the instructions were legally erroneous, (3) that the errors had a prejudicial effect, and (4) that alternative instructions were requested to correct the error. Prejudicial error is defined as one that undermines substantial justice, while an error may be deemed harmless if it is determined that it could not have affected the outcome. RIM objected to the jury instructions regarding the claim constructions and sought alternative instructions reflecting its interpretation of "originating processor." RIM presented a declaration from its expert, Dr. Reed, asserting that the accused BlackBerry products did not infringe under its proposed constructions, including the "originating processor" limitation. However, the district court declined to admit this declaration into evidence or consider its arguments. For RIM to overturn the jury verdict, it must prove the prejudicial nature of the error in the jury instructions. RIM contends that the court excluded testimony regarding claim limitations inconsistent with its claim construction; however, the ruling specifically addressed the "separate and distinct physical housing" and "RF indicator" arguments. Testimony related to infringement based on the district court's claim construction was presented at trial, but the relationship between this testimony and the correct interpretation of "originating processor" remains unclear. The parties have not thoroughly examined the evidentiary record in their appeal. Given the district court's familiarity with the trial record, it is better equipped to assess any prejudicial error stemming from the incorrect claim construction. Consequently, the issue is remanded to the district court for resolution. If RIM can demonstrate that the erroneous construction prejudiced the jury's verdict regarding claims containing "originating processor"—specifically claims 15, 32, and 34 of the ’960 patent; claim 8 of the ’670 patent; and claim 40 of the ’592 patent—the district court must set aside the verdict on those claims. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) outlines the requirements for direct patent infringement, stating that unauthorized making, using, selling, or importing of a patented invention in the U.S. constitutes infringement. Patent rights are confined to the U.S. and do not extend beyond its borders, as established in precedent cases. While applying § 271(a) is generally straightforward, alternative subsections may be relevant for cases where the accused infringer's actions do not fit neatly within its framework. For instance, § 271(f) addresses the manufacture of significant portions of a patented invention in the U.S. for export. Subsection (g) addresses the infringement of a patent through the foreign use of a patented process for manufacturing a product that is later imported into the United States, which can lead to direct infringement under the statute. NTP claims that even if subsection (a) does not apply, infringement could still occur under subsections (f) or (g). However, the court determined that subsection (a) is the proper basis for NTP's infringement claim, thus rendering the alternative subsections unnecessary for consideration. The complexity of the case arises from two factors: (1) the patented invention is a system made up of multiple components or steps, and (2) these components can function independently of their physical location. RIM sought summary judgment for non-infringement, arguing they could not be liable under section 271(a) because the BlackBerry Relay component is located in Canada. NTP's infringement theory aligns with section 271(a), alleging RIM infringed by "making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing" its BlackBerry products and related software. The district court denied RIM's summary judgment motion, indicating that NTP must prove RIM performed all patented process steps within the U.S. However, the court noted a genuine dispute existed regarding whether RIM operated a Relay facility in Virginia, preventing resolution at the summary judgment stage. At trial, the court later ruled that the location of the BlackBerry Relay in Canada does not preclude an infringement finding. RIM contends this interpretation conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., asserting that all infringing activities must occur within the U.S. for liability under section 271(a). RIM maintains that since the Relay is entirely located in Canada, the infringement standard is not satisfied, though it was previously noted that there was uncertainty regarding a potential Relay operation in Virginia, which has since been resolved in RIM’s favor. For the analysis, it is assumed the Relay is solely in Canada. For section 271(a) to apply, RIM argues that the entire accused system or method must be executed within the United States. If any claim limitation requires a component located outside the U.S., RIM contends that the entire system falls outside the jurisdiction of section 271(a), regardless of whether the system operates within the U.S. The court reviews the statutory interpretation of the district court without deference, focusing on the ordinary meaning of the statute's language. The primary question is whether the presence of an overseas component that aids a system's operation in the U.S. negates infringement under section 271(a). The plain language of section 271(a) does not exclude infringement claims where a system, like RIM's, is used in the U.S. even if part of it is located abroad. Consequently, when two users communicate through BlackBerry devices, their use is considered to occur "within the United States," despite possible international transmission of messages. The landmark case Deepsouth is referenced, where the Supreme Court ruled that exporting unassembled components of a patented invention does not constitute direct infringement under section 271(a). The court ultimately concludes that RIM's system usage satisfies the criteria for infringement without needing to address whether its sale does as well. A combination patent protects against the operable assembly of the whole invention, not merely the manufacturing of its individual components. The Supreme Court's decision in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. highlighted a loophole in patent law regarding the export of parts without combining them into a complete system in the U.S. In response, Congress enacted section 271(f) in 1984 to extend infringement liability to cover the export of elements of patented inventions, directly addressing the issues raised in Deepsouth. The Court in Deepsouth interpreted section 271(a) to restrict direct infringement claims to actions occurring within the U.S., avoiding extraterritorial application of patent law. Inventors seeking protection in foreign markets must obtain patents in those jurisdictions. However, the current case differs from Deepsouth, as the beneficial use of the accused components occurs within the U.S., despite some components being located abroad. This distinction is supported by a precedent case, Decca Ltd. v. United States, where the court found that the use of a navigation system, despite components being located internationally, constituted infringement under section 271(a) due to the operative assembly being utilized within the U.S. The United States controls the transmission from a Norwegian station by establishing and continuously monitoring its signals within the U.S. Actions to synchronize these transmissions also occur in the U.S. This indicates that while the station is on Norwegian soil, the signals are effectively used in the U.S. Consequently, there is a basis for liability under claim 11, based on the combination of factors including U.S. ownership and control of the equipment, as well as the beneficial use of the system within the U.S. The Court of Claims clarified that the claims pertain to the reception and use of broadcast signals, not their generation, which would be outside U.S. patent law jurisdiction if focused on transmitters abroad. The BlackBerry system is compared to the infringing system in Decca, as claims relate to email transmission between subscribers, with the majority of RIM's system components located in the U.S. Despite RIM’s Relay being in Canada, the control and beneficial use of the system in the U.S. affirm the application of section 271(a). The judgment from the district court regarding RIM’s infringing conduct is upheld. Additionally, the grant or denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law is a procedural issue, reviewed under Fourth Circuit law, where evidence is viewed favorably towards the nonmovant without weighing evidence or assessing credibility. A jury's conclusion on patent infringement must be upheld unless no reasonable jury could reach the same decision. RIM's challenge to NTP's expert Dr. Vernon Rhyne's testimony, which supported a finding of infringement for several patent claims, was deemed insufficient. RIM argued inconsistencies with its own employee Alan Lewis's testimony, but the court affirmed that Dr. Rhyne's testimony was not solely based on Lewis and that additional evidence supported the jury's verdict. RIM also contended that certain prior art, specifically the AlohaNet system, invalidated the asserted claims. However, the jury found RIM's expert Dr. Reed's testimony on invalidity lacked credibility, and the court agreed that it did not meet the high burden of clear and convincing evidence required. RIM contested three evidentiary rulings: the exclusion of testimony from a patent attorney regarding the sufficiency of the written description, the exclusion of a RIM employee's testimony on the BES system, and the exclusion of a prior art demonstration due to authenticity concerns. The court found that the district court acted within its discretion on these evidentiary issues. The court altered the construction of the term "originating processor" but affirmed the rest of the district court's claim constructions. The case was remanded to determine if the jury verdict should be set aside due to the prejudicial effect of the incorrect claim construction, and how this might affect damages and the injunction. The judgment and injunction were vacated in part, with costs to be borne by each party. The decision was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings.