U.S. Patent Infringement: Evidence Presented by Finesse Wireless

A comprehensive expert opinion does not protect against a loss if the assignment of key claim features is not technically sound. In Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2024-1039, dated September 24, 2025, the Federal Circuit rejected the basis for infringement for both asserted patents and vacated the damages award. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on June 29, 2026; this refusal does not constitute a separate endorsement of the substantive reasoning.

The technical error lay in the classification, not in a lack of technical vocabulary

The case concerned the suppression of intermodulation interference in Nokia radio transceivers. With regard to one patent, the expert assigned a signal to be sampled as claimed to a modeled signal path that was generated only after the sampling. This temporal and functional assignment did not support the allegation of infringement. In the case of the other patent, there was insufficient explanation of how the documented operations implemented the seven claimed multiplications.

This is particularly relevant for claims related to software and signal processing: Similar block names, identical objectives, or mathematically related results do not substitute for a reliable mapping of the claimed processing steps. The infringement analysis should make it clear where a signal is present, when it is generated, and what specific operation is performed on it.

For SEPs, it remains possible to provide standards-based proof of infringement

Finesse Wireless is not a FRAND decision and does not preclude the possibility of proving patent infringement based on a standard. The relevant precedent remains Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). According to that decision, a standard can serve as the basis for product-related proof if its implementation necessarily results in the realization of the relevant patent features. In the case of optional standard components or different standard-compliant implementations, however, general standard compliance is not automatically sufficient.

A standard claim chart should therefore do more than simply compare the claim wording with the standard section. It should explain why the cited standard necessarily embodies the feature. Terms such as „shall,“ „may,“ and implementation-dependent options can be more important to the line of reasoning than the length of the cited standard text.

Standard essentiality is not merely a matter of claim interpretation

In Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., 967 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed that the relevant questions of essentiality and compliance may be submitted to the jury in an infringement proceeding. The patent owner was not required to have the issue of essentiality determined in advance as a pure legal question in claim construction proceedings. The line of evidence was based on the essentiality of mandatory standard components and the standard compliance of the challenged devices.

When preparing for the trial, two separate chains of evidence should therefore be maintained: one linking the asserted claim to the standard, and the other linking the standard to the challenged product. Where the first chain leaves an option open, the second requires additional evidence of implementation.

As a tool, we recommend using a table that, for each characteristic, lists not only the standard section but also its binding nature, the product assignment, and the supporting evidence specified for it. This makes it clear whether a characteristic actually follows from the standard or, unnoticed, contains a product-specific assumption.

The trial record must contain the key assignment

In the Finesse Wireless case, the lack of an explanation could not be remedied by a subsequently clarified classification in the appeal proceedings. What was decisive was what had been presented to the jury as a sound basis for a finding of infringement.

On the defendant’s side, a Rule 50 motion should therefore not merely state that the expert opinion is „conclusory.“ It should identify the specific feature, the alleged classification, and the critical gap in the evidence. Rule 50 requires that the motion specify the relief sought as well as the legal and factual grounds.

The practical implication is this: A claim chart is procedurally sound if its key transitions can be explained and proven. For SEP proceedings, this means, in particular, that standard conformity is a route to proof, not a substitute for proving the features.

Legal Notice

These articles are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute individual legal advice. They may contain errors or omissions and reflect the status as of the date indicated. We do not guarantee that they will be updated on an ongoing basis. Use of these articles does not create an attorney-client relationship.