United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

INGENICO INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee

INGENICO CORP., INGENICO GROUP S.A., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees

v.

IOENGINE, LLC, Defendant/Counter-Claimant-Appellant ______________________

2023-1367 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:18-cv-00826-WCB, Circuit Judge William C. Bryson. ______________________

Decided: May 7, 2025 ______________________

KERRY L. TIMBERS, Sunstein LLP, Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellee and counter- claim defendants-appellees. Also represented by KEVIN R. MOSIER.

NOAH LEIBOWITZ, Dechert LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant/counter-claimant-appellant. Also repre- sented by GREGORY CHUEBON; MICHAEL A. FISHER, Phila- delphia, PA; MICHAEL JOSHI, San Francisco, CA. Case: 23-1367 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 05/07/2025

2 INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC

______________________

Before DYK, PROST, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. HUGHES, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware pursuant to a jury verdict and the subsequent denial of mo- tion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial. Judgment, Ingenico, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No. 18- 826-WCB (D. Del. July 25, 2022), ECF No. 506. IOENGINE appeals a jury verdict that found claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,059,969 and claims 56, 90, 101, 105, and 124 of U.S. Patent No. 9,774,703 invalid as anticipated and rendered obvious by the prior art. In the alternative, IOENGINE appeals the district court’s jury instructions and decision to allow Ingenico to introduce prior art at trial. Because substantial evidence supports the jury ver- dict, and because the district court did not abuse its discre- tion in denying a new trial, we affirm. I The patents-at-issue are directed to a portable device, such as a USB thumb drive, which includes a processor that causes communications to be sent to a network server in response to user interaction with an interface on a ter- minal. ’969 patent, Abstract; ’703 patent, Abstract. On March 23, 2018, IOENGINE filed an action in the District of Delaware alleging PayPal Holdings, Inc.’s ac- cused products infringed various patents, a subset of which are at issue in this appeal. Complaint, IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 18-452-WCB (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2018), ECF No. 1. Because it supplied PayPal’s accused products, Ingenico filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE. Complaint, Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE LLC, No. 18-826-WCB (D. Del. June 1, 2018), ECF No. 1. Case: 23-1367 Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 05/07/2025

INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC 3

Prior to trial, Ingenico filed IPR petitions challenging IOENGINE’s asserted patents, which resulted in final written decisions that held most of the challenged claims of the ’969 and ’703 patents unpatentable. Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, IPR2019-00879 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2019); Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, IPR2019-00929 (PTAB Apr. 4, 2019). At summary judgment, IOENGINE moved to preclude Ingenico from relying on “documentation related to DiskOnKey Upgrade software” under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) because Ingenico reasonably could have been expected to raise it during the IPR proceedings. J.A. 115 n.21. The district court ruled that “Ingenico will be es- topped from relying on those documents [to prove invalid- ity] except to the extent .