Tq Delta LLC v. CommScope Holding Company Inc. — Non-Precedential Patent Appeal Affirmed

Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Tq Delta, LLC v. Commscope Holding Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-1587

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (22)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 1 Filed: 04/24/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit

---

TQ DELTA, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,
COMMSCOPE, INC., ARRIS INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED, ARRIS GLOBAL LTD., ARRIS U.S.
HOLDINGS, INC., ARRIS SOLUTIONS, INC., ARRIS
TECHNOLOGY, INC., ARRIS ENTERPRISES LLC,
Defendants-Cross-Appellants

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL SALES
PTE. LIMITED, BROADCOM INCORPORATED,
BROADCOM CORPORATION,
Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs/Counterclaimants

---

2024-1587, 2024-1588

---

Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:21-cv-00310-JRG, Judge
J. Rodney Gilstrap.

---

Decided: April 24, 2026

---

Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 2 Filed: 04/24/2026

2 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

JEFFREY A. LAMKEN, MoloLamken LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
JENNIFER ELIZABETH FISCHELL, RAYINER HASHEM, LIDIYA
MISHCHENKO; ELIZABETH KATHLEEN CLARKE, Chicago, IL;
CATHERINE MARTINEZ, New York, NY; RAJENDRA A.
CHIPLUNKAR, PETER J. MCANDREWS, DAVID Z. PETTY,
McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL.

BRETT M. SCHUMAN, Goodwin Procter LLP, San Fran-
cisco, CA, argued for defendants-cross-appellants. Also
represented by JESSE LEMPEL, Boston, MA.

---

Before LOURIE, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
TQ Delta, LLC (“TQ Delta”) appeals from a final deci-
sion of the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Texas denying its motion for judgment as a matter
of law (“JMOL”) or a new trial on the jury’s finding of non-
infringement of U.S. Patent 8,090,008 (“the ’008 patent”).
See J.A. 208–224 (“’008 Decision”). TQ Delta also appeals
from the district court’s claim construction decision, which
it argues affected the jury’s finding of invalidity of U.S. Pa-
tent 8,462,835 (“the ’835 patent”) and requires JMOL of no
invalidity or a new trial. See TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope
Holding Co., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-309-JRG, 2022 WL 2071073
(E.D. Tex. June 8, 2022) (“Claim Construction Decision”).
Finally, TQ Delta appeals from the district court’s final de-
cision denying a new trial on damages. See J.A. 166–190,
(“Damages Decision”). For the following reasons, we af-
firm. 1

1 CommScope Holding Company, Inc., CommScope
Inc., ARRIS International Limited, ARRIS Global Ltd.,
ARRIS US Holdings, Inc., ARRIS Solutions, Inc., ARRIS
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 3 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 3

BACKGROUND
TQ Delta owns the ’008 and ’835 patents. Those pa-
tents generally relate to digital subscriber line (“DSL”)
technology, which enables high-speed data transmission
over copper telephone lines. Industry participants estab-
lish global standards for DSL technology through the In-
ternational Telecommunication Union (“ITU”). The ITU
receives declarations from patent owners informing the in-
dustry of any patents covering DSL technologies included
in those standards. Some of those patents are considered
standard-essential patents (“SEPs”), i.e., the standard can-
not be practiced without infringing those patents. The ITU
requires SEPs owners to license their SEPs on fair, reason-
able, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. For pur-
poses of the infringement issue in this appeal, it is disputed
as to whether the ’008 and ’835 patents are SEPs.
TQ Delta brought suit against CommScope alleging
that certain CommScope DSL modems (“the accused prod-
ucts”) infringe several of its patents, including the ’008 and
’835 patents. At trial, as relevant to this appeal, the as-
serted claims included claim 14 of the ’008 patent and
claim 10 of the ’835 patent. CommScope sells the accused
products to telephone companies like AT&T, which distrib-
utes them to DSL subscribers. TQ Delta’s infringement
theory at trial was that, because both patents are stand-
ard-essential to the ITU’s VDSL2 standard, and
CommScope’s accused products undisputedly comply with
that standard, the accused products necessarily practice
every limitation of the asserted claims and therefore in-
fringe. CommScope contested the patents’ standard-essen-
tiality and denied infringement. It also argued that the

Technology, Inc., and ARRIS Enterprises LLC (collectively,
“CommScope”) conditionally cross-appeal. CommScope
Resp. Br. at 3. Because we affirm the district court’s deci-
sions, CommScope’s conditional cross-appeal is moot.
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 4 Filed: 04/24/2026

4 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

asserted claims were invalid as both anticipated and obvi-
ous.
At trial and before the close of evidence, both parties
moved for JMOL under Rule 50(a). Both sides’ motions
were denied, and the district court proceeded to instruct
the jury. The jury ultimately returned a mixed verdict. It
found, in part, that claim 14 of the ’008 patent was not in-
valid but also not infringed and that claim 10 of the ’835
patent was infringed but invalid. The jury also found that
CommScope infringed other TQ Delta patents and awarded
$11.125 million in reasonable royalty damages accord-
ingly. 2 The parties renewed their JMOL motions, which
the district court again denied as discussed below.
I
The ’008 patent discloses systems and methods di-
rected to phase scrambling in multicarrier systems to re-
duce peak-to-average ratio (“PAR”) mitigating the issues
that an increased PAR can create: high-power consumption
and an increased likelihood of clipping the transmission
signal. ’008 patent, Abstract; id. at col. 2 ll. 25–27.
Claim 14 recites:
A multicarrier system including a first transceiver
that uses a plurality of carrier signals for modulat-
ing a bit stream, wherein each carrier signal has a
phase characteristic associated with the bit
stream, the transceiver capable of:

2 The jury found that CommScope infringed claim 17
of U.S. Patent 7,453,881, claim 5 of U.S. Patent 8,276,048,
claim 18 of U.S. Patent 8,468,411, and claim 10 of U.S. Pa-
tent 9,154,354 (the “infringed patents”). See J.A. 1–2. The
infringed patents are the basis of the jury’s damages award
but are otherwise not at issue in this appeal. Id.
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 5 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 5

[a] associating each carrier signal with a value de-
termined independently of any bit value of the bit
stream carried by that respective carrier signal,
the value associated with each carrier signal deter-
mined using a pseudo-random number generator;
[b] computing a phase shift for each carrier signal
based on the value associated with that carrier sig-
nal; and
[c] combining the phase shift computed for each re-
spective carrier signal with the phase characteris-
tic of that carrier signal to substantially scramble
the phase characteristics of the plurality of carrier
signals, wherein multiple carrier signals corre-
sponding to the scrambled carrier signals are used
by the first transceiver to modulate the same bit
value.
Id. at col. 11 l. 41–col. 12 l. 14 (emphasis added).
After the district court entered final judgment on the
jury’s noninfringement finding, TQ Delta renewed its
JMOL motions, including an argument that CommScope
infringed claim 14 of the ’008 patent. ’008 Decision,
J.A. 208. TQ Delta’s infringement arguments were two-
fold. First, as a threshold matter, it argued that
CommScope stipulated that the ’008 patent was a SEP,
foreclosing the jury’s finding of noninfringement as to
claim 14. Id. at 213. CommScope responded that there was
no such stipulation for infringement purposes. Id. at 214.
It argued that it consistently contested both essentiality
and infringement at trial, and any reference to essentiality
in the instructions was expressly conditional and limited to
FRAND damages—i.e., only if the jury first found infringe-
ment would it consider damages and thus any relevant
FRAND commitments. Id. CommScope also pointed to the
jury verdict form, which left infringement of the ’008 patent
for the jury to decide. Id. The district court agreed with
CommScope, adding that, because there were no objections
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 6 Filed: 04/24/2026

6 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

to either the instructions or the verdict form, “CommScope
could properly contest standard essentiality and infringe-
ment.” Id. at 215. Accordingly, it rejected TQ Delta’s stip-
ulation-based infringement argument. Id.
Second, even absent a stipulation, TQ Delta argued
that it met its burden to show that claim 14 mapped onto
the VDSL2 standard and that the accused products prac-
tice that standard, thus compelling a finding that the ac-
cused products infringe claim 14. Id. at 216. The dispute
centered on whether claim 14’s requirement of “computing
a phase shift for each carrier signal,” which the district
court construed as “computing the amount by which a
phase is adjusted for each carrier signal,” covered the im-
plementations of the VDSL2 standard. 3 Id. (citing Claim
Construction Decision, 2022 WL 2071073, at *39). TQ
Delta contended that it did. ’008 Decision, J.A. 216. It ar-
gued that claim 14 did not require a non-zero amount of
phase shift for every carrier, and that, even if it did, zero
was still an “amount.” Id. at 218–20.
TQ Delta’s evidence amounted to expert testimony that
tied the claimed “plurality of carrier signals” in the pream-
ble of claim 14 to the subcarriers listed in Table 12-68 of
the VDSL2 standard, and the claimed “phase characteris-
tic[s] . . . to the special operations channel (“SOC”) mes-
sage[s]” in that same table. Id. at 217–18.

3 The district court also construed the term “phase
characteristic(s)” as “one or more values that represent the
angular aspect of a constellation point.” Claim Construc-
tion Decision, 2022 WL 2071073, at *32.
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 7 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 7

J.A. 10021. That mapping is critical to TQ Delta’s infringe-
ment theory because it defined the universe of signals to
which the rest of claim 14 applies. In TQ Delta’s view, that
mapping excluded subcarrier zero (another signal de-
scribed in the standard), which it alleged is not used to
modulate the SOC bit stream and carries only a DC signal.
’008 Decision, J.A. 218. It added that, even if subcarrier
zero is part of the “plurality of carrier signals,” a zero-de-
gree phase shift is an “amount by which a phase is ad-
justed” because the plain meaning of “amount” includes
zero and no reasonable juror could conclude otherwise. Id.
at 220–21.
CommScope argued in response that TQ Delta’s evi-
dence, including its expert testimony, failed to prove that
the VDSL2 standard computed a phase shift for “each car-
rier signal” as required by claim 14[b]. Id. at 219. It iden-
tified Section 12.3.6.2 and Table 12-70 of the standard, also
relied on by TQ Delta’s expert, which states that each “con-
stellation point” or “phase characteristic” (i.e., the “X, Y”
pair) “of each subcarrier shall be pseudo-randomly rotated
by 0, π/2, π, or 3π/2 depending on the value of a 2-bit
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 8 Filed: 04/24/2026

8 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

pseudo-random number.” Id. (citation modified). Because
the X, Y pair are the coordinates before scrambling, see J.A.
10023, CommScope argued that this means that the first
row in Table 12-70, displaying a “0” degree “Angle of rota-
tion” and a “Final coordinate[]” of “X, Y,” necessarily has no
“phase shift” computed. ’008 Decision, J.A. 219.

J.A. 10023.
CommScope also argued that TQ Delta failed to prove
that the VDSL2 standard “combine[d] the phase shift com-
puted for each respective carrier signal” with “the phase
characteristic of that carrier signal as required by
claim 14[c].” Id. at 220. It identified a portion of TQ Delta’s
expert testimony admitting that the standard stated that
“subcarrier with index 0 (DC) shall not be rotated” to argue
that therefore the standard fails to “combine the phase
shift computed for each respective carrier signal.” Id.
CommScope further concluded that whether zero, in the
context of a rotation, is an “amount” is a “quintessential
question of fact” that the jury could, and properly did, an-
swer in the negative. Id. at 221 (citation modified).
The district court rejected TQ Delta’s arguments, ex-
plaining that it “failed to point to evidence of overwhelming
effect showing that the Jury must have found infringe-
ment.” Id. at 223. The district court therefore concluded
that “this issue is not so one-sided as to justify overturning
the Jury’s verdict.” Id. (quoting Grey v. First Nat’l Bank in
Dall., 393 F.2d 371, 380 (5th Cir. 1968) (citation modified)).
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 9 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 9

It also noted that because TQ Delta’s theory relied on es-
tablishing the ’008 patent as a SEP, it “need not reach the
issue of whether the accused products practiced the stand-
ard.” Id.
II
The ’835 patent concerns synchronization of forward
error correction (“FEC”) and interleaving parameter set-
tings (together, “FIP settings”) changes that occur within
receiving and transmitting modems to address impulse
noise. ’835 patent col. 3 ll. 24–36. The receiving and trans-
mitting modems switch between FIP settings in response
to the claimed “flag signal.” Id. at col. 12 ll. 8–37. Claim 8
recites “[a]n apparatus configurable to adapt forward error
correction and interleaver parameter (FIP) settings” that
comprises “a transceiver, including a processor, configura-
ble to . . . transmit a flag signal” wherein the FIP “switch-
ing occurs on a pre-defined forward error correction
codeword boundary following the flag signal.” 4 Id. at col.
21 ll. 33–46.
The district court, adopting a construction from a sep-
arate litigation in the District of Delaware concerning the
same patent, construed the term “flag signal” to be a “sig-
nal used to indicate when an updated FIP setting is to be
used (the signal does not include the FEC codeword counter
value upon which the updated FIP setting is to be used).”
Claim Construction Decision, 2022 WL 2071073, at *45–46
(citing TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-01835-
RGA, 2018 WL 3238776 (D. Del. July 3, 2018) (“Delaware
Construction I”)).
In doing so, the district court rejected TQ Delta’s pro-
posed instruction, which precluded a “flag signal” from con-
taining any “message data indicating when the updated

4 Asserted claim 10 of the ’835 patent depends from
independent claim 8.
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 10 Filed: 04/24/2026

10 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

FIP setting / interleaver parameter value is to be used.”
Claim Construction Decision, 2022 WL 2071073, at *44.
Rather, the district court only excluded the “FEC codeword
counter” from “flag signal,” noting that such construction
is consistent with the specification which contrasts “flag
signal” synchronization methods with “other synchroniza-
tion methods, such as using codeword counters.” Id. at *45
(citing ’835 patent col. 9 ll. 23–27; id. at col. 11 ll. 10–65).
This reasoning is similar to the Delaware court’s analysis,
which treated the “flag signal” and the “FEC codeword
counter” synchronization methods as two different embod-
iments, and found that the “claims read only on the ‘flag
signal’ embodiment.” Delaware Construction I, 2018 WL
3238776, at *3.
The jury ultimately found that the ’835 patent was in-
fringed but invalid. J.A. 4549–50. TQ Delta renewed its
JMOL motion for the ’835 patent arguing that the patent
was not invalid, but it did not dispute the district court’s
claim construction of “flag signal.” See TQ Delta, LLC v.
CommScope Holding Co., Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00310-JRG,
2023 WL 5511518, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2023). Instead,
it challenged whether the prior art disclosed claim 10’s
“transceiver.” Id. at *8. The district court denied TQ
Delta’s JMOL motion. Id. On appeal, TQ Delta challenges
only the jury’s finding of invalidity insofar as it argues that
the district court’s claim construction of “flag signal” was
incorrect and affected the jury verdict such that JMOL of
no invalidity or a new trial is warranted. See TQ Delta Op.
Br. 48–53.
III
As for damages, on the eve of the jury being instructed,
TQ Delta submitted a proposed instruction on damages
that stated its “cost-savings model” required the patentee
to show “that the defendant’s infringement allowed it to
avoid taking a different, more costly course of action,”
wherein the “defendant” is CommScope. J.A. 6413–14
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 11 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 11

(emphases added). The next morning, the district court cir-
culated draft jury instructions that proposed the following:
TQ Delta, the Plaintiff, has proposed a cost-savings
model of calculating reasonable royalty damages
that values the Accused Products that CommScope,
the Defendant, provides to its customers. This ap-
proach relies upon estimated costs, if any, that
CommScope saved from making, using, or selling
the Accused Products. In considering the amount
of reasonable royalty damages under the cost-sav-
ings model, you should focus on whether
CommScope’s make, use, or sale of the patented
technology allowed it to avoid taking a different,
more costly course of action, and if so, how much
CommScope saved by using the Accused Products
instead of taking the more costly course of action.
J.A. 6386 (emphases added). TQ Delta proposed edits to
that proposed instruction as follows:
TQ Delta, the Plaintiff, has proposed a cost-savings
model of calculating reasonable royalty damages
that values the Accused Products that CommScope,
the Defendant, provides to its customers. This ap-
proach relies upon estimated costs, if any, that
CommScope saved from the making, using, or
selling of the Accused Products save. In consider-
ing the amount of reasonable royalty damages un-
der the cost-savings model, you should focus on
whether CommScope’s making, using or selling
make, use, or sale of the patented technology
avoided allowed it to avoid taking a different,
more costly course of action, and if so, how much
CommScope saved by using the Accused Products
instead of taking the more costly course of action.
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 12 Filed: 04/24/2026

12 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

See J.A. 139–40. 5 Notably, it maintained the last part of
that instruction emphasizing that the jury should consider
“how much CommScope saved by using the Accused Prod-
ucts.” See id. (emphasis added). The district court over-
ruled TQ Delta’s objection and proceeded to instruct the
jury without their edits. J.A. 140.
The jury awarded TQ Delta $11.125 million in reason-
able royalty damages for the infringed patents. Damages
Decision, J.A. 169. After final judgment was entered by the
district court, TQ Delta renewed its JMOL motion, arguing
“that the [district court] committed prejudicial error in its
jury instruction on TQ Delta’s damages model.” Id. at 170.
It contended that the jury instructions improperly focused
on cost-savings to CommScope rather than downstream
customers like AT&T. Id. at 171. In making such argu-
ment, it identified that “there is no requirement that a cost-
savings model be based on the cost-savings of the defend-
ant and to the exclusion of the defendant’s customer for the
infringing product.” Id. at 174 (citation modified). And
thus, here, TQ Delta claimed that because “it chose to sue
the manufacturer . . . it can base its damages on the cost-
savings of the end-user customers,” and the jury instruc-
tion undercut that theory. Id.
CommScope responded that even if TQ Delta had pre-
served its objection to the instruction, the district court did
not abuse its discretion. Id. CommScope argued that “the
[district court], consistent with long-standing legal prece-
dent, instructed the Jury that the cost-savings model fo-
cuses on savings to the defendant” based on “the defendant
acting as a willing licensee in a hypothetical negotiation.”
Id. at 174–75. It also identified that “TQ Delta failed to
cite a single case establishing that the cost savings to a

5 The text that is underlined and bolded was pro-
posed to be added to the instruction by TQ Delta, and the
text that was stricken was proposed to be deleted.
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 13 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 13

third party to the hypothetical negotiation may form the
basis of a reasonable royalty calculation,” and thus there
could be no obvious error or resulting prejudice. Id. at 175.
The district court denied TQ Delta’s JMOL motion on
damages, finding its objection insufficient, id. at 173, and
the instruction legally sound, id. at 176–77, and further
concluding that any alleged error was not prejudicial in
light of the damages award, id. at 177–180. The district
court explained that even under the more lenient abuse of
discretion standard, there was no error; it instructed the
jury that TQ Delta’s damages theory relied on a cost-sav-
ings approach focused on CommScope’s savings, consistent
with TQ Delta’s proposed edits and the law, and nothing in
the instructions required the jury to ignore TQ Delta’s ex-
pert testimony about cost savings involving AT&T or other
downstream customers. Id. at 173–177.
TQ Delta timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a)(1).
DISCUSSION
TQ Delta appeals from the district court’s denial of its
JMOL motions and requests for new trials. Specifically, it
argues that (1) no reasonable jury could have concluded
that claim 14 of the ’008 patent was not infringed, (2) the
jury’s finding that claim 10 of the ’835 patent is invalid is
flawed because it is based on a faulty claim construction,
and (3) a new trial on damages is warranted because the
district court provided an erroneous and prejudicial jury
instruction. We address each argument in turn.
We apply our own law with respect to patent law is-
sues. Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc.,
175 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (en banc in relevant part).
We therefore review the district court’s “claim construction
based on intrinsic evidence de novo and review any findings
of fact regarding extrinsic evidence for clear error.”
Promptu Sys. Corp. v. Comcast Corp., 92 F.4th 1372, 1377
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 14 Filed: 04/24/2026

14 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

(Fed. Cir. 2024) (citation modified). Moreover, infringe-
ment is a question of fact, “which we review for substantial
evidence when tried to a jury.” Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
811 F.3d 455, 461 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
For matters not unique to patent law, we apply the law
of the regional circuit, here, the Fifth Circuit. Network-1
Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 981 F.3d 1015, 1026
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (applying Fifth Circuit law). The Fifth Cir-
cuit “reviews decisions on motions for JMOL ‘de novo, re-
applying the JMOL standard.’” Id. (quoting Summit 6,
LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1293 (Fed. Cir.
2015)). Under Fifth Circuit law, JMOL should be granted
only “[i]f the evidence at trial points so strongly and over-
whelmingly in the movant’s favor that reasonable jurors
could not reach a contrary conclusion.” Omnitech Int’l, Inc.
v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316, 1323 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations
omitted). Further, the district court’s denial of a motion for
a new trial is reviewed for “an abuse of discretion or a mis-
apprehension of the law,” with any legal error reviewed de
novo. Prytania Park Hotel v. Gen. Star Indem. Co.,
179 F.3d 169, 173 (5th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
Regarding the review of jury instructions, “[w]here a
specific and timely objection is made” to an instruction, the
Fifth Circuit reviews “that objection under an abuse of dis-
cretion standard, affording the trial court substantial lati-
tude in describing the law to the jurors.” Jimenez v. Wood
Cnty., 660 F.3d 841, 845 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citation
modified). But where a party fails to object to a jury in-
struction in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
dure 51, Fifth Circuit review is limited to plain error. Id.
I
We begin with the ’008 patent. TQ Delta contends that
the district court erred in denying JMOL or a new trial on
infringement of the ’008 patent. See TQ Delta Op. Br. 29–
48. Its argument is two-fold. First, it argues that, after the
close of evidence but before the jury was instructed,
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 15 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 15

CommScope changed course and stipulated that the ’008
patent is a SEP, thus compelling an infringement finding
for claim 14. Id. at 30–37. Second, TQ Delta contends that,
even if there was no such stipulation, the evidence none-
theless supported an infringement finding because it
showed that claim 14 covered the implementations of the
relevant ITU standard and CommScope’s accused products
practiced that standard. Id. at 37–48. We disagree on both
counts and discuss each in turn.
A
TQ Delta argues that “CommScope stipulated that the
’008 patent was essential to the VDSL2 standard” for pur-
poses of infringement and that the district court improperly
“narrow[ed] the stipulation.” Id. at 29. We disagree. The
jury instructions demonstrate that the stipulation was con-
ditional and directed only to the damages context upon a
finding of infringement.
The first sentence of the relevant the stipulation re-
cites: “the ’008 Patent . . . [is] subject to commitments with
the International Telecommunications Union.” J.A. 6366–
67. While TQ Delta claims that this statement “unambig-
uous[ly]” resolves the issue of standard essentiality, TQ
Delta Op. Br. 30, it ignores the language of the statement
itself. That statement relates only to the agreement be-
tween TQ Delta and the ITU regarding its FRAND “com-
mitments.” J.A. 6366–67. That TQ Delta and the ITU have
such an agreement does not end the standard essentiality
inquiry for infringement purposes; it merely reflects the ex-
istence of a contractual commitment to license those pa-
tents on FRAND terms.
The supposed stipulation therefore has no effect on
CommScope’s ability to contest infringement or to argue
that the ’008 patent is not, in fact, standard essential in the
sense required to prove infringement. TQ Delta’s interpre-
tation also ignores the remaining context of the jury in-
structions, which consistently frame any reference to SEPs
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 16 Filed: 04/24/2026

16 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

within the discussion of FRAND obligations and the corre-
sponding reasonable royalty determination. See, e.g., J.A.
6390 (“In light of this FRAND commitment, I have referred
at times in my instructions to SEPs.”); id. (“A reasonable
royalty on the patents, which the parties have stipulated
are SEPs . . . cannot exceed the amount permitted under
TQ Delta’s FRAND obligations.”). The context of the in-
structions and the jury verdict form also makes clear that
infringement remained a fact question for the jury to de-
cide in the first instance. See J.A. 6370 (“The Defendants,
CommScope, deny that they infringe any of the Asserted
Claims.”); J.A. 6385 (“If you find that CommScope has in-
fringed any valid claim of the Asserted Patents, you must
then consider what amount of damages, if any, to award to
TQ Delta.”); J.A. 4549 (verdict form leaving infringement
of the ’008 patent for the jury to decide).
The instructions and verdict form thus confirm that the
stipulation did not resolve infringement. The jury was ex-
pressly tasked with deciding infringement, and the district
court reiterated that any FRAND-based limitation on re-
covery applied only after such a finding. Consistent with
that record, the district court correctly concluded that
CommScope “never stipulated to the standard essentiality
of the ’008 Patent for infringement purposes,” ’008 Deci-
sion, J.A. 215, and its interpretation of the parties’ stipula-
tion is entitled to deference. Commonwealth Scientific &
Indus. Rsch. Org. v. Buffalo Tech. (USA), Inc., 542 F.3d
1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Given that the district court
is in the best position to understand the position of the par-
ties as expressed through their series of exchanges with the
court . . ., we sustain the court’s interpretation of the stip-
ulation.”); see also Risher v. United States, 465 F.2d 1, 5
(5th Cir. 1972) (“We are not inclined to disturb the district
court’s interpretation of a stipulation agreed upon by the
parties during pretrial proceedings and approved by the
court.”). The district court appropriately rejected TQ
Delta’s stipulation-based argument.
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 17 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 17

B
In the alternative, TQ Delta argues that, stipulation
aside, the record evidence is clear that claim 14 of the
’008 patent covers all implementations of the ITU’s VDSL2
standard and therefore there is no substantial evidence
supporting the jury’s noninfringement finding. See TQ
Delta Op. Br. 37–48. In so arguing, TQ Delta relies on its
own expert testimony, which it characterizes as “without
contradiction” apparently because CommScope offered no
opposing expert witness of its own. Id. at 37.
The question before us is not whether substantial evi-
dence supports TQ Delta’s position but whether substan-
tial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. See InTouch
Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2014). And the jury was free to reject the TQ
Delta expert’s testimony, especially in light of TQ Delta’s
burden to prove infringement. See Welker Bearing Co. v.
PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he bur-
den remains with the patentee to prove infringement, not
on the defendant to disprove it.”); InTouch Techs., 751 F.3d
at 1343 (“While [expert] testimony was proffered, the jury
was free to reject it.”). Therefore, as a threshold matter,
TQ Delta’s argument is misplaced in that it fails to account
for the jury’s role in weighing the evidence and assessing
credibility. Even uncontradicted expert testimony need not
be accepted where, as here, it is subject to cross-examina-
tion and competing inferences from the record. See
InTouch Techs., 751 F.3d at 1343.
Turning to the evidence, we conclude that substantial
evidence supported the jury’s finding of noninfringement.
TQ Delta’s expert testified that “the [’008 patent] claims
that are asserted . . . are . . . essential to the VDSL2 stand-
ard.” J.A. 5335. Yet, he provided no basis for this state-
ment and conceded on cross examination that he did not
know whether the ITU makes any official or binding stand-
ard essentiality determination. J.A. 5370–71. Indeed,
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 18 Filed: 04/24/2026

18 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

CommScope provided evidence that the VDSL2 standard
itself provides that the ITU “takes no position” on whether
a patent is essential to a standard. J.A. 5371 (quoting the
standard at J.A. 9756). The jury therefore could have rea-
sonably discounted TQ Delta’s conclusory testimony and
found that it failed to establish that practicing the VDSL2
standard necessarily practices claim 14. Thus, the evi-
dence was not “so one-sided as to” require that the district
court overrule the jury’s noninfringement finding. See
Grey, 393 F.2d at 380 (“[W]hen the party moving for a di-
rected verdict has [the] burden, the evidence to support the
granting of the motion must be so one-sided as to be of over-
whelming effect.”).
TQ Delta also makes a claim construction-related ar-
gument. The district court construed claim 14’s require-
ment of “computing a phase shift for each carrier signal” as
“computing the amount by which a phase is adjusted for
each carrier signal.” Claim Construction Decision,
2022 WL 2071073 at *39. TQ Delta contends that
“CommScope’s sole ‘defense’ was pointing to the possibility
that some carriers will be shifted by a 0-degree angle of ro-
tation under certain conditions.” TQ Delta Op. Br. 37. But
in TQ Delta’s view, because “[t]here is no requirement of a
non-zero-amount phase shift for every carrier,” that neces-
sarily “foreclose[s] CommScope’s only non-infringement
theory from being substantial evidence.” Id. We disagree.
The district court’s construction plainly requires that
“each carrier signal” is “adjusted.” Claim Construction De-
cision, 2022 WL 2071073, at *39. The district court’s con-
struction in this case was also consistent with a prior
construction provided in a different litigation by the dis-
trict court in Delaware for the same term of the same pa-
tent. Id. (citing TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-
01835-RGA, 2018 WL 582111 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2018) (“Del-
aware Construction II”)). TQ Delta improperly attempts to
rely on the Delaware court’s construction of different terms
to contend that the relevant term here should be construed
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 19 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 19

to expressly allow carriers with a phase shift of zero. See
TQ Delta Br. 39–40. Specifically, it contends that “the Del-
aware court expressly rejected a construction requiring
‘phase adjustment of a non-zero amount.’” Id. at 40 (quot-
ing Delaware Construction II, 2018 WL 582111, at *3). It
concluded that the Delaware court’s analysis, which per-
tained to a different claim term (i.e., the term “scramble the
phase characteristics of the plurality of carrier signals”),
should control here. Id.
TQ Delta’s claim construction argument fails for at
least two reasons. First, a construction relating to a differ-
ent term in a different case has no effect on the relevant
claim term here. Second, the Delaware construction was
not presented to the jury, nor were any definitions of
“amount.” And because the jury was instructed that it
“should disregard any evidence presented at trial that con-
tradicts or is inconsistent with the constructions and the
definitions that [the district court gave] you,” the district
court’s construction left open the possibility that a reason-
able jury could conclude that computing a zero-phase shift
for a particular carrier signal failed to meet its construction
requiring that the phase be adjusted “for each carrier sig-
nal.” J.A. 6216; see ’008 patent col. 6 ll. 41–46.
The jury was also free to find that compliance with the
VDSL2 standard did not require “computing a phase shift,”
as the claim requires. Although TQ Delta’s expert testified
that the VDSL2 quadrant scrambler meets the “computing
a phase shift” limitation, J.A. 5345–46, he conceded on
cross-examination that Section 12.3.6.2 describes rotation
by zero degrees, J.A. 5382–85, and that the DC subcarrier
“shall not be rotated,” J.A. 5385. Both concessions show
that practicing the standard does not conform with
claim 14.
In sum, TQ Delta’s arguments ask us to reweigh the
evidence and credit its expert’s testimony over competing
inferences the jury was entitled to draw. The record
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 20 Filed: 04/24/2026

20 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury
could find that practicing the VDSL2 standard does not
necessarily require “computing a phase shift for each car-
rier signal,” including evidence that the standard permits
zero-degree rotation. That evidence, together with the dis-
trict court’s construction requiring that the phase be “ad-
justed” for each carrier signal—which the jury could
reasonably understand to exclude zero-rotation—provides
a sufficient basis for the jury’s noninfringement finding.
We therefore conclude that because the evidence is not “so
one-sided” as to compel a finding of infringement, substan-
tial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of noninfringe-
ment. Grey, 393 F.2d at 380.
II
Turning to the ’835 patent, TQ Delta argues that the
jury’s invalidity verdict cannot stand because the district
court erred in construing the term “flag signal.” See TQ
Delta Op. Br. 48–53. We disagree. Claim 8, from which
asserted claim 10 depends, requires “[a]n apparatus config-
urable to adapt forward error correction and interleaver
parameter (FIP) settings” that comprises “a transceiver”
that is capable of “switch[ing]” from “a first FIP setting” to
“a second FIP setting following the transmission of the flag
signal.” ’835 patent col. 21 ll. 33–40. It further requires
that “the switching occurs on a pre-defined forward error
correction codeword boundary following the flag signal.”
Id. at col. 21 ll. 45–46.
The district court, adopting a construction from the
District of Delaware, construed the term “flag signal” as a
“signal used to indicate when an updated FIP setting is to
be used (the signal does not include the FEC codeword
counter value upon which the updated FIP setting is to be
used).” Claim Construction Decision, 2022 WL 2071073,
at *45–46 (citing Delaware Construction I, 2018 WL
3238776). That construction appropriately distinguishes
between the “flag signal” and the “FEC codeword counter”
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 21 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 21

embodiments as contrasted in the specification without im-
properly importing any limitations from the specification
into the claims. Compare ’835 patent col. 19 ll. 15–30, with
’835 patent col. 11 ll. 10–65. In this way, the construction
gives effect to the specification’s delineation between the
“flag signal” and “FEC codeword counter” approaches,
while appropriately avoiding confining the claimed “flag
signal” so narrowly so as to not include any timing infor-
mation.
TQ Delta argues, however, that the district court’s con-
struction is too broad and that, in particular, its parenthe-
tical should have had greater exclusionary effect. TQ Delta
Op. Br. 48–49. It contends that the plain meaning of “flag”
in claim 8 is “an indicator that signals the existence of . . .
the condition that the FIP settings need to be updated; it
does not contain associated commands directing the other
modem when to update the FIP settings.” Id. at 49. Thus,
in its view, the district court’s construction should have
made clear that “the claimed ‘flag’ cannot include timing
information.” Id. at 51. For support, it draws on the term
“pre-defined” in claim 8. Id. at 49–50. It notes that the
claim “requires switching of FIP settings to ‘occur[] on a
pre-defined forward error correction codeword boundary
following the flag signal.’” Id. And therefore, it contends,
the claim “requires the timing to be ‘pre-defined’—i.e., not
‘defined’ by the flag signal itself.” Id. at 50.
But nothing in the claim language prohibits the
claimed “flag signal” from including the time of the switch.
The claim makes clear that the update to FIP settings must
occur at a “pre-defined forward error correction codeword
boundary,” but that requirement does not limit the permis-
sible content of the “flag signal.” ’835 patent, col. 21 ll. 45–
46 (emphasis added). Rather, “pre-defined” specifies when
the switching must occur—i.e., at a boundary fixed or
known in advance—while “flag signal” refers to the signal
that indicates or initiates the transition to the updated FIP
setting. Those are distinct requirements. Nonetheless, the
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 22 Filed: 04/24/2026

22 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

“flag signal” that triggers the switching may still carry in-
formation identifying that “pre-defined” timing. Put differ-
ently, the claim separates the timing constraint from the
signaling mechanism, yet nothing in that separation ex-
cludes a “flag signal” that conveys timing-related infor-
mation.
Reading “flag signal” to categorically exclude any tim-
ing-related information would improperly import a nega-
tive limitation, based on embodiments from the
specification, into the claims. See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra
Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023); see also
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very
specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
warned against confining the claims to those embodi-
ments.”). The district court’s construction, in contrast, ap-
propriately captures that the “flag signal” indicates that an
updated FIP setting is to be used, without requiring that it
exclude all information bearing on timing. Accordingly, TQ
Delta’s proposed construction finds no support in the
claims or specification, and we therefore do not disturb the
jury’s invalidity verdict based on the district court’s con-
struction.
III
We now address TQ Delta’s request for a new trial on
damages. See TQ Delta Op. Br. 53–68. According to TQ
Delta, it was error to instruct the jury that “TQ Delta’s
damages were based on CommScope’s savings.” Id. at 63.
Recall that TQ Delta urged the district court to make the
following changes to its jury instruction, which the district
court rejected:
TQ Delta, the Plaintiff, has proposed a cost-savings
model of calculating reasonable royalty damages
that values the Accused Products that CommScope,
the Defendant, provides to its customers. This ap-
proach relies upon estimated costs, if any, that
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 23 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 23

CommScope saved from the making, using, or
selling of the Accused Products save. In consider-
ing the amount of reasonable royalty damages un-
der the cost-savings model, you should focus on
whether CommScope’s making, using or selling
make, use, or sale of the patented technology
avoided allowed it to avoid taking a different,
more costly course of action, and if so, how much
CommScope saved by using the Accused Products
instead of taking the more costly course of action.
See J.A. 139–40; Damages Decision, J.A. 173–77.
In TQ Delta’s view, because “[r]easonable royalties
must be based on the ‘value of the use of the patented tech-
nology,’” id. at 53 (citing AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Corp.,
782 F.3d 1324, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015)), any evidence about
how much a defendant’s downstream customers saved
should be considered by the jury. And it argues that the
jury instructions disregarded that relevant law and im-
properly narrowed the damages inquiry to only
CommScope’s savings, undercutting its damages case. Id.
at 53–54. We conclude that any error was invited.
“Under the invited error doctrine, ‘a party cannot com-
plain on appeal of errors which he himself induced the dis-
trict court to commit.’” Garcia-Ascanio v. Spring Indep.
Sch. Dist., 74 F.4th 305, 310 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation mod-
ified). That doctrine extends to jury instructions, preclud-
ing appellate challenges to such errors “absent manifest
injustice.” Id. (cleaned up); see also Prism Techs. LLC v.
Sprint Spectrum L.P., 849 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“[A] party may not complain on appeal of errors that he
himself invited or provoked the . . . court . . . to commit.”
(quoting United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 488 (1997))).
Manifest injustice, in this context, is an error that is “so
patent as to have seriously jeopardized the rights of the ap-
pellant.” United States v. Green, 272 F.3d 748, 754 n.16
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 24 Filed: 04/24/2026

24 TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

(5th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Lemaire, 712 F.2d
944, 949 (5th Cir.1983)).
TQ Delta invited any alleged error in the district
court’s damages instructions by repeatedly proposing and
endorsing the very language it now challenges. First, it
submitted a proposed instruction stating that its “cost-sav-
ings model” required showing that “the defendant’s in-
fringement allowed it to avoid taking a different, more
costly course of action,” J.A. 6413–14 (emphases added),
thereby framing damages in terms of CommScope’s sav-
ings. Second, when presenting edits to the proposed jury
instructions to the district court, TQ Delta told the court
that the relevant clause (i.e., “how much CommScope
saved”) should “stay the same,” J.A. 6190, expressly pro-
moting language directing the jury to consider “how much
CommScope saved,” J.A. 6386 (emphasis added). Having
affirmatively advocated for this instruction, TQ Delta can-
not now complain of it on appeal. See McCaig v. Wells
Fargo Bank (Tex.), N.A., 788 F.3d 463, 476 (5th Cir. 2015)
(citing United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1337 (11th
Cir. 2005) (“When a party responds to a court’s proposed
jury instructions with the words ‘the instruction is accepta-
ble to us,’ such action constitutes invited error.”)).
Moreover, TQ Delta has not shown that any alleged er-
ror resulted in manifest injustice. First, no authority man-
dates that, in calculating a reasonable royalty for
infringement, the cost-savings model must include savings
to downstream third parties. The lack of authority under-
scores that the district court’s instruction did not clearly
misstate the law or impose an impermissible limitation on
the jury’s consideration of damages. See also Jimenez,
660 F.3d at 847 (declining to extend precedent “cannot be
plain error.”); Garcia-Ascanio, 74 F.4th at 310 (a party
“cannot satisfy plain-error review” when “there is no case
law supporting [its] position”). Second, even if TQ Delta’s
position had case law support, the instruction did not pre-
clude the jury from considering evidence relating to
Case: 24-1587 Document: 82 Page: 25 Filed: 04/24/2026

TQ DELTA, LLC v. COMMSCOPE HOLDING COMPANY, INC. 25

CommScope’s customers’ savings, nor did it foreclose TQ
Delta’s broader damages theory. The instruction simply
focused the analysis on CommScope’s gains as the accused
infringer, which could reflect both direct cost savings and
indirect economic benefits derived from its customers’
downstream savings—such as increased demand, pricing
power, or other value attributable to use of the invention.
In addition, the instructions as a whole did not channel
the jury into either party’s damages framework or preclude
consideration of TQ Delta’s theory. In describing
CommScope’s hypothetical negotiation theory, the jury was
instructed to consider a range of evidence, including the
“Georgia-Pacific factors,” which encompass “the benefits to
those who have used the invention” and “any evidence pro-
bative of the value of that use” among other considerations.
J.A. 6387–88. The jury was also instructed that it “can and
should consider the evidence that has been presented to
you in this case on each of these [Georgia-Pacific] factors.”
Id. Thus, the jury was free to consider the full scope of TQ
Delta’s cost-savings evidence and apply it to either party’s
damages model. Any alleged limitation in the instruction
was neither clear nor so prejudicial as to have seriously
jeopardized TQ Delta’s rights.
Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the jury’s
damages award.
CONCLUSION
We have considered TQ Delta’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.