Unclear Expert Testimony Leads to Reversal of JMOL Denial and Vacatur of $166 Million Damages Award

In Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2024-1039 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2025), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of AT&T’s motion for JMOL of noninfringement and vacated the associated damages award.

Finesse asserted two patents claiming methods for mitigating intermodulation product interference in radios against AT&T. The jury found all asserted claims valid and infringed and awarded Finesse $166,303,391 in damages. AT&T moved for a new trial and JMOL of noninfringement and damages. The district court denied all three motions. AT&T appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the infringement finding for the first patent was not supported by substantial evidence, as Finesse relied on unclear and self-contradictory expert testimony, thereby failing to meet its burden. The Federal Circuit also held that the infringement finding for the second patent was not supported by substantial evidence. The Federal Circuit determined that AT&T’s allegedly infringing activity did not include a necessary claim limitation, contrary to Finesse’s presentation of the evidence and, particularly, its expert’s testimony. Finally, after reversing both denials of JMOL of noninfringement, the Federal Circuit vacated the damages award.