Posted on March 17, 2012 by Gregory B. Williams

Judge Robinson Denies Cordis's Renewed Motion for Judgment As A Matter of Law as to Jury's Award of Lost Profits in Patent Infringement Action

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Cordis Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-315-SLR (D.Del., March 13, 2012), the Court denied the motion of defendant Cordis Corporation requesting the Court to disturb the jury verdict and grant Cordis’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. In support of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, Cordis alleged that the jury’s verdict - which the parties agreed included an award to Boston Scientific of lost profits based on the normal profit margin per unit of sales of the product that allegedly declined in sales because of the infringing products - was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 7. Cordis also alleged that Boston Scientific had not proven that the introduction of the products found to infringe the patent at issue was the “but-for cause” of the decline of sales of the Cordis product. Id.

Upon evaluation of the evidence presented during trial, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of lost profits in the case and denied Cordis’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 25. A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link
Posted on February 14, 2010 by Gregory B. Williams

D.DEL. GRANTS INLINE'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS MATTER OF LAW IN PART

By an opinion rendered by the Honorable Mary Pat Thynge, dated February 5, 2010, in Inline Corp. v. Earthlink, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law of plaintiff, Inline Connection Corporation ("Inline"), as to the jury's patent invalidity verdict, but denied the motion as to the jury's non-infringement verdict.  The Court also denied Inline's motion for a new trial.

A copy of the opinion is attached.

By way of background, in June 2002, Inline filed suit against Earthlink, Inc. ("Earthlink") alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,596 ("the '596 patent"), 6,243,446 ("the '446 patent") and another patent.  In 2003, Inline added its U.S. Patent No. 6,542,585 ("the '585 patent") to the litigation.

The trial in the matter commenced in February 2007.  During trial, Inline asserted infringement of the following by Earthlink:  1) claim 61 of the '596 patent; 2) claims1 through 5 of the '446 patent; and 3) claims 1,2, 4, 8 and 9 of the '585 patent.  Earthlink denied infringement and alleged that the asserted claims were invalid because they were anticipated and obvious, and the patents failed to comply with the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Earthlink of non-infringement and that the asserted claims were invalid as anticipated and obvious, and the patent failed to comply with the written description and enabling requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  Thereafter, Inline renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and, in the alternative, moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a).

Upon careful analysis of the jury's verdicts and the record, the Court concluded that there was not substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict on anticipation and that the record could not support the jury's verdict on obviousness.  The Court also concluded that there was not substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict of invalidity of the patents for failure to comply with the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  The Court further concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict on non-infringement, and the jury's verdict of non-infringement was not "contrary to the great weight of the evidence", or "wholly irrational" as to warrant the granting of a new trial on the infringement issue. 
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link