The opinion
Case: 23-2029 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 11/12/2025
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal 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
______________________
Case: 23-2029 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 11/12/2025
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
Case: 23-2029 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 11/12/2025
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. 10221. 1
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.
Case: 23-2029 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 11/12/2025
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 is 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
November 13, 2025
Date