United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NEXSTEP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________

2022-1815, 2022-2005, 2022-2113 ______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:19-cv-01031-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews. ______________________

Decided: October 24, 2024 ______________________

PAUL J. ANDRE, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by CHRISTINA M. FINN, JAMES R. HANNAH, LISA KOBIALKA; AARON M. FRANKEL, CRISTINA MARTINEZ, CARLOS J. TIRADO, New York, NY.

THOMAS SAUNDERS, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross- appellant. Also represented by AMY K. WIGMORE; WILLIAM F. LEE, GEORGE FANTON MANLEY, SARAH B. PETTY, Boston, MA; LAUREN MATLOCK-COLANGELO, New York, NY; MARY VIRGINIA SOOTER, Denver, CO. Case: 22-1815 Document: 67 Page: 2 Filed: 10/24/2024

2 NEXSTEP, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

______________________

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge CHEN. Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge REYNA. CHEN, Circuit Judge. NexStep, Inc., (NexStep) appeals from a final judgment that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, (Comcast) did not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,885,802 (’802 patent) and 8,280,009 (’009 patent). After construing the term “VoIP” in the ’802 patent, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. The ’009 patent proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found no literal infringement but infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Following a post-trial motion by Comcast, the district court found NexStep’s proof inadequate and granted judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement of the ’009 patent. On appeal, NexStep argues that the district court erred in its construction of VoIP in the ’802 patent and further erred in granting Comcast’s motion for judgment as a matter of law for the ’009 patent. We reject those challenges and affirm as to both issues. In light of that disposition, we do not reach NexStep’s contentions related to damages or Comcast’s conditional cross-appeal related to validity. I. NexStep filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of nine patents, including the ’802 and ’009 patents. Following Markman proceedings, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’802 patent, adopting Comcast’s view that VoIP was a term of art with a meaning that excluded NexStep’s sole infringement theory. At the same time, the district court denied Comcast’s summary judgment motion relating to the ’009 patent; that motion Case: 22-1815 Document: 67 Page: 3 Filed: 10/24/2024

NEXSTEP, INC. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 3

argued that the ’009 patent was ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. After a jury trial for the ’009 patent, the jury found that the asserted patent claims were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. In response to the verdict form’s question addressing literal infringement, the jury found that the ’009 patent was not literally infringed. Following post-trial motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), the district court set aside the jury verdict and granted judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law, finding the evidentiary record inadequate to support infringement under the doctrine of equiva