(“After claim construction, the fact finder compares the properly construed claims to the accused device or process.”). Rather than documenting TPLLC’s factual allegations relating to particular theories of liability — i.e., whether AT & T “sells” the patented invention within the meaning of section 271(a), or whether Palm’s advertising induces direct infringement by OUs-the Court will focus its factual summary here, and its subsequent legal analysis, on the nature of the accused system. The following discussion of the accused systems tracks TPLLC’s claim charts and the extensive report prepared by TPLLC’s lead expert, Regis Bates. See Doc. No. 1492 (hereinafter “Bates Decl.”); cf. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 520, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Bates provides multiple scenarios describing
holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that courts must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving partys favor and accept the nonmoving partys evidence as true holding that courts must when reviewing motions for summary judgment evaluate disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor holding that the courts role is to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party and to eschew credibili ty assessments holding that in reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict