motion for judgment as a matter of law

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Maryellen Noreika in TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-172-MN (D.Del. January 5, 2022), the Court granted Defendant Next Caller’s post-trial renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law of no false advertising under the Lanham Act and to take away the jury’s

By Memorandum and Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., Civil Action No. 15-0033-RGA-MPT (D.Del. August 14, 2018), the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of Invalidity, Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-1330-RGA (D.Del. March 13, 2017), the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for Lack of Patent-Eligible Subject Matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., Civil Action No. 10-1067-LPS (D.Del., March 10, 2016), the Court denied defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on noninfringement, invalidity and damages with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,987,610 (“the ‘610 patent”).