NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`Anited States Court of Appeals
`for the ffederal Circuit
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`V.
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC., OATH INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees
`
`2022-1762
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-00920-VAC-JLH, Judge
`Leonard P. Stark.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Third-Party Defendant
`
`V.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant-Appellee
`
`2023-2029
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 ARENDI S.A.R.L. v. OATH HOLDINGS INC.
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of Delaware in No. 1:13-cv-00919-JLH, Magistrate
`Judge Jennifer L. Hall.
`
`SUA SPONTE
`
`Before DYK, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`ORDER
`
`This order concerns Case No. 2023-2029, Arendi
`S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, and not Case No. 2022-1762, Ar-
`endi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc.
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Arendi”) filed a
`claim for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843
`(843 patent”) (as well as other patents) against Defend-
`ant-Appellee Google LLC (“Google”) in the District of Dela-
`ware. With respect to the 843 patent, Google, inter alia,
`asserted non-infringement and the affirmative defenses of
`invalidity based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. [J.A. 10305.] Following
`trial, the jury returned a special verdict, finding (1) Google
`did not infringe the ’843 patent, (2) the ’843 patent was in-
`valid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and (3) the
`’843 patent was invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`After trial, the district court entered a Judgment Following
`Verdict, stating:
`
`The jury having deliberated on Plaintiff Arendi
`S.A.R.L.s claims of willful patent infringement of
`claims 23 and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (the
`“843 patent”), and the jury having reached a ver-
`dict on May 2, 2023 finding that Defendant Google
`LLC’s accused products do not infringe the as-
`serted claims, judgment of non-infringement on all
`asserted claims is entered in favor of Defendant
`and against Plaintiff. The jury having further de-
`liberated on Defendant Google LLC’s affirmative
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L. v. OATH HOLDINGS INC. 3
`
`defense of anticipation of claims 23 and 30 of the
`’843 patent, and the jury having reached a verdict
`finding that those claims are anticipated, and the
`jury also having deliberated on Defendant’s affirm-
`ative defense of obviousness of claims 23 and 30 of
`the ’843 patent, and the jury having reached a ver-
`dict finding that those claims are obvious, judg-
`ment is entered in favor of Defendant and against
`Plaintiff on Defendant’s invalidity defenses.
`
`J.A. 102211
`
`Following the verdict, Arendi moved for judgment as a
`matter of law and new trial on the anticipation and obvi-
`ousness grounds. After briefing on these motions, the dis-
`trict court entered an order stating, “the Court desires the
`parties’ views on whether the Court can (or should or must)
`decline to address the merits of Plaintiff’s validity argu-
`ments and instead enter an Amended Judgment that says
`(in substance) that ‘Judgment is entered in favor of Defend-
`ant.” J.A. 108. Following responses from the parties, the
`district court denied Arendi’s posttrial motions and de-
`clined to “clarify’ in the judgment document ‘that the judg-
`ment is based on the jury’s non-infringement verdict at
`trial.” J.A. 98-99 (quoting J.A. 10255).
`
`The district court stated: “Arendi’s Renewed Motions
`for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for a New
`Trial (D.I. 559) are DENIED. The Court will enter final
`judgment in favor of Google on Arendi’s claim of infringe-
`ment of the ’843 patent.” J.A. 100.
`
`The district court then entered a Final Judgment, stat-
`ing, “Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and
`against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claim of patent infringement
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843.” J.A. 1.
`
`1 Citations to the J.A. refer to the Corrected Confi-
`dential Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this case.
`Dkt. No. 64.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 ARENDI S.A.R.L. v. OATH HOLDINGS INC.
`
`This court concludes that the record is unclear as to
`whether the final judgment represents a judgment of inva-
`lidity as well as a judgment of noninfringement.
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(1) Within five business days of the entry of this order,
`the parties are directed to seek clarification of the disposi-
`tion of the jury verdict of invalidity and the nature of the
`judgment from the district court and entry of an amended
`final judgment.
`
`(2) Specifically, the parties are directed to seek an
`amended final judgment that clarifies whether the judg-
`ment rests solely on noninfringement or also incorporates
`the jury’s invalidity verdict, particularly in light of the de-
`nial of the posttrial motions.
`
`(3) This case 1s remanded to the district court for the
`limited purposes described above. This court otherwise re-
`tains jurisdiction over the appeal.
`
`(4) Upon entry of amended final judgment from the dis-
`trict court, either party may file a new notice of appeal.
`
`(5) The appeal will be decided by the present panel,
`based on the briefs already filed, any new briefing ordered
`by the court, and the oral arguments heard on November 6,
`2025.
`
`For THE COURT
`
`Jarrett B. Perlow
`NOVemIt;Zielg’ 2025 Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`