This past July, a Northern District of California returned a verdict awarding Impinj $17.79M in lost profits and an additional $1.36M in reasonable royalties against NXP USA. In that same verdict, however, the jury found that prior art presented at the trial failed to render an independent claim obvious but somehow nevertheless did render that claim’s dependents obvious. This inconsistency prompted Impinj to file an unusual motion, which District Court Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers quickly denied: “the Court will not reconvene the jury”. Now, the court has granted a motion for a new trial on the limited issue of invalidity of these claims, guaranteeing that it will have to convene a new jury and indicating that it “does not do this lightly, as it has never granted such a request”. The ruling has also prompted the court to order the parties to rework the damages award and undermined Impinj’s motion for a permanent injunction, which the court seems otherwise inclined to have granted.