"[T]he specification describes FIG. 4A’s logic block 34, a logic design circuit containing a multitude of elements, as the corresponding structure for performing the synchronizing function. Because GET and its expert failed to account for many of the elements in block 34 in their infringement analysis, we agree with the district court that GET presented a deficient infringement case as to this limitation and we thus affirm . . . Dr. Fernald offers no meaningful explanation of why the bit-rate clock is the only part of logic block 34 that matters. GET does not argue now, nor did it attempt to argue before the district court, that the other elements of logic block 34 are, e.g., devoted to only the encoding function and therefore may be ignored for the purposes of synchronization. Thus, the district court found that Dr. Fernald was deficient in his explanation of why he had considerably curbed his analysis of logic block 34 to just one of its elements . . . Like the expert in Traxcell Technologies, Dr. Fernald has “neglected to address a significant fraction” of logic block 34. "

"Polygroup argues that because the Board held claim 10 unpatentable, the added value of claim 15 is limited to the use of coaxial barrel connectors themselves . . . Polygroup maintains Willis should have apportioned to the incremental value of claim 15 by removing any damages attributable to the limitations claim 15 incorporated from claim 10. Under that theory, Willis’ recoverable damages were limited to the use of coaxial barrel connectors themselves, and no more. We do not agree. "

"SynQor argued that the case before the district court was exceptional because Vicor’s infringement merits defenses, infringement equitable defenses, and counterclaims were exceptionally weak. SynQor further argued that Vicor litigated the case in an exceptional manner by filing a series of ex parte reexamination petitions after its inter partes review petition had been denied and using its counterclaims to introduce inflammatory and prejudicial allegations (including SynQor’s so-called “Kill Vicor” campaign) . . . As to enhanced damages, SynQor argued that the case was exceptional because Vicor had no good-faith belief of noninfringement or invalidity and litigated the case in bad faith. The district court granted both motions"

"As to indirect infringement, Vicor’s arguments amount to no more than an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence before the jury and make various inferences in Vicor’s favor. This we decline to do. As to willful infringement, the district court correctly found that the jury’s verdict was supported by substantial evidence. While we agree with Vicor that the standards for willful infringement and willful blindness are different, we hold that the evidence in the record, taken in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, was sufficient to prove both indirect infringement and willfulness . . . The problem with Vicor’s argument at bottom is that it relies on drawing inferences from the evidence that the jury was simply not required to make . . . The jury heard extensive evidence that Vicor monitored and reverse engineered SynQor’s patent-marked products . . . was made aware of SynQor’s position that Vicor’s products were not a noninfringing alternative . . . and chose to indemnify Cisco rather than provide a legal opinion that its products did not infringe . . . On this record, the “requisite intent to induce infringement may be inferred from all the circumstances.”"