Well, then, you are right. However, Pelham, the Seventh Amendment is also quite simply stated, which I shall quote for you and also highlight a particular portion of it.
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The Seventh Amendment is a protection of the People against barratry, the repeated bringing of the same suit that has already been adjudicated. It does not mean that a case cannot be appealed by the losing party until that party has exhausted his rights to be heard by an appellate court to revue the decision.
The situation is that if the "fact tried by a jury" relates to a patent, and it is determined by an Appellate court that the patent was in fact NOT PATENTABLE and should never have been granted, then that is something a court of appropriate jurisdiction can indeed under the rules of common law, INVALIDATE the finding of fact, because the premise under which the jury, indeed the whole premise under which the lawsuit was brought, was based on error on the part of a government agent.
In fact, in this very case, an appellate court, vacated part of the original jury's findings of fact and sent it back to the lower court for a second trial, with a different jury, on the amount of damages because they original jury had, according to the appellate court erred on the facts of damages. The judge allowed VirnetX to add additional claims to the new trial and to try them as well, impermissibly (in my opinion) adding those to the specific trial on damages ordered by the appellate court which was intended to ONLY readdress the overly broad $384 million award of the first trial, which resulted in compounding the error of the first jury of basing the supposed royalties of a minor component on a percentage of the sales price of the entire device rather than the value it added to the over all value, by using the SAME formula to calculate damages that caused the Appellate Court to vacate the original judgement. This trial judge has been reversed on the same issue several times before and doesn't seem to be getting the message.
What SCOTUS will be addressing is the PTAB ignoring or reversing an Article 3 court. They decided a similar case in 2011, Stern v Marshall, involving bankruptcy courts usurping power from Article 3 courts. SCOTUS is currently defending Article 3 courts. It’s a separation of powers issue.