manner. High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1555 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“The question is not what [a device] might have been made to do, but what it was intended to do and did do.... That a device could have been made to do something else does not of itself establish infringement.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). As is the case here, however, a device may infringe if it has the present capability of functioning in the same manner described by the claim, see Intel Corp. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed.Cir.1991), and sufficient evidence has been presented to persuade the trier of fact that the device is indeed used in such a manner, see Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). NI’s proof was based on MathWorks’ own
holding that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary and that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but may also be more certain satisfying and persuasive holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent holding in analyzing reliance under common law fraud that circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient but in most cases is the only proof that can be adduced holding circumstantial evidence has equivalent standing to direct evidence in criminal prosecution holding that direct and circumstantial evidence are to be given the same weight when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence