Judge Richard G. Andrews recently ruled on post-trial motions following a five day jury trial between two competitors in the WAN optimization market. Riverbed Technology, Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 11-484-RGA (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2014). After the jury returned a verdict in favor of Silver Peak on its counterclaims for infringement, Riverbed moved for judgment as a matter of law of no indirect infringement. Judge Andrews explained that although there was no “smoking gun” demonstrating that Riverbed possessed the knowledge required for a finding of indirect infringement, the jury’s finding that the company more likely than not had the requisite knowledge was supported by the circumstantial evidence at trial. See id. at 7-8. The Court also found that the circumstantial evidence at trial of customers’ direct use of the infringing functionality was “just barely sufficient to convince the Court not to disturb the jury’s verdict.” Id. at 8-12. Judge Andrews explained that “[w]hen viewed as a whole, Silver Peak offered sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit a jury to reasonably conclude that Riverbed customers used the infringing functionality in the United States. Silver Peak provided the jury with evidence of Riverbed’s high sales volume, numerous Riverbed documents describing the benefits of [the infringing functionality], how to use [it], and instructing customers on how to test [it], as well as blog posts on Riverbed’s U.S. support forum from users who used [it.]” Id. at 12. The Court denied Silver Peak’s motion for a permanent injunction, however, finding that Silver Peak failed to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm. Id. at 18-24.