So as not to be misled by the exponential notation, suppose all we have to start with is a function $f$ given by the power series
$$f(u)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{u^n\over n!}=1+u+{u^2\over2}+{u^3\over6}+\cdots$$
It's clear that $f(0)=1$ and $f(u)\gt1$ if $u\gt0$. For this problem, however, setting $u=1/x$ with $x\gt0$, we need to show that
$$f(-u)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty(-1)^n{u^n\over n!}=1-u+{u^2\over2}-{u^3\over6}+\cdots\lt1\quad\text{for }u\gt0$$
The easiest way to do this (I think) is to show that $f(-u)=1/f(u)$ and then invoke the fact that $f(u)\gt1$ for $u\gt0$, and the easiest way to do this (I think!) is to establish the general property
$$f(u+v)=f(u)f(v)$$
and then invoke the fact that $f(u-u)=f(0)=1$. So let's do that:
$$\begin{align}
f(u+v)
&=\sum_{N=0}^\infty{(u+v)^N\over N!}\\
&=\sum_{N=0}^\infty{1\over N!}\sum_{n=0}^N{N\choose n}u^nv^{N-n}\\
&=\sum_{N=0}^\infty{1\over N!}\sum_{n=0}^N{N!\over n!(N-n)!}u^nv^{N-n}\\
&=\sum_{N=0}^\infty\sum_{n=0}^N\left({u^n\over n!}\cdot{v^{N-n}\over(N-n)!}\right)\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{N=n}^\infty\left({u^n\over n!}\cdot{v^{N-n}\over(N-n)!}\right)\qquad(*)\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left({u^n\over n!}\sum_{N=n}^\infty{v^{N-n}\over(N-n)!} \right)\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left({u^n\over n!}\sum_{m=0}^\infty{v^m\over m!} \right)\\
&=\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty{u^n\over n!}\right)\left(\sum_{m=0}^\infty{v^m\over m!}\right)=f(u)f(v)
\end{align}$$
The key step, $(*)$, is the switching of the order of summation. This technically requires its own justification, which amounts to showing (or knowing) that the series is absolutely convergent.
Remarks: For $0\lt u\lt1$ it's clear from the strictly decreasing nature of the terms of the alternating series $f(-u)=1-u+{u^2\over2}-{u^3\over6}+\cdots$ that $0\lt f(-u)\lt1$ without any of the preceding folderol. But for $u\gt1$ it's not at all clear just from the series definition that $f(-u)$ is either positive or less than $1$. E.g., it's really hard to see, just from its opening, where the sum
$$1-10+50-{500\over3}+{1250\over3}-\cdots$$
is going to settle down. If there is an easier way to prove that $f(-u)\lt1$ for $u\gt0$ than the approach I've taken, I'd very much like to see it.