United States District Court, D. Delaware
before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law on the Issue of Invalidity (D.I. 778) and
related briefing (D.I. 784, 790, 792), and Plaintiffs Renewed
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative
a New Trial on the Issue of Infringement, and for a New Trial
on the Issue of Damages (D.I. 779) and related briefing (D.I.
785, 789, 793).
reasons that follow, the Court will DENY Defendant's
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of
Invalidity (D.I. 778), and DENY Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative a New Trial
on the Issue of Infringement, and for a New Trial on the
Issue of Damages (D.I. 779).
Judgment as a Matter of Law
as a matter of law is appropriate if "the court finds
that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
evidentiary basis to find for [a] party" on an issue.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). "Entry of judgment as a matter of
law is a 'sparingly' invoked remedy, granted only if,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant and giving it the advantage of every fair and
reasonable inference, there is insufficient evidence from
which a jury reasonably could find liability." Marra
v. Phila. Hous. Autk, 497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir. 2007)
assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court must
give the nonmovant, "as [the] verdict winner, the
benefit of all logical inferences that could be drawn from
the evidence presented, resolve all conflicts in the evidence
in his favor and, in general, view the record in the light
most favorable to him." Williamson v. Consol. Rail
Corp., 926 F.2d 1344, 1348 (3d Cir. 1991). The Court may
"not determine the credibility of the witnesses [nor]
substitute its choice for that of the jury between
conflicting elements in the evidence." Perkin-Elmer
Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Rather, the Court must determine whether the
evidence reasonably supports the jury's verdict. See
Gomez v. Allegheny Health Servs. Inc., 71 F.3d 1079,
1083 (3d Cir. 1995); 9B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2524
(3d ed. 2008) ("The question is not whether there is
literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the
motion is directed but whether there is evidence upon which
the jury might reasonably find a verdict for that
the movant bears the burden of proof, the Third Circuit
applies a stricter standard. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
v. Videfreeze Corp., 540 F.2d 1171, 1177 (3d Cir. 1976).
To grant judgment as a matter of law in favor of a party that
bears the burden of proof on an issue, the Court "must
be able to say not only that there is sufficient evidence to
support the [movant's proposed] finding, even though
other evidence could support as well a contrary finding, but
additionally that there is insufficient evidence for
permitting any different finding." Id.
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1)(A) provides, in pertinent
part: "The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on
all or some of the issues-and to any party- ... after a jury
trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore
been granted in an action at law in federal court...."
Among the most common reasons for granting a new trial are:
(1) the jury's verdict is against the clear weight of the
evidence, and a new trial must be granted to prevent a
miscarriage of justice; (2) newly discovered evidence exists
that would likely alter the outcome, of the trial; (3)
improper conduct by an attorney or the court unfairly
influenced the verdict; or (4) the jury's verdict was
facially inconsistent. See Zarow-Smith v. N.J. Transit
Rail Operations, Inc., 953 F.Supp. 581, 584-85 (D.NJ.
decision to grant or deny a new trial is committed to the
sound discretion of the district court. Allied Chem.
Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980);
Olefins Trading, Inc. v. Han Yang Chem Corp., 9 F.3d
282, 289 (3d Cir. 1993). Although the standard for granting a
new trial is less rigorous than the standard for granting
judgment as a matter of law-in that the Court need not view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict
winner-a new trial should only be granted where "a
miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were to
stand" or where the verdict "cries out to be
overturned" or "shocks [the] conscience."
Williamson, 926 F.2d at 1352-53.
asserts claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 21 of U.S. Patent No.
5, 859, 547 ("the '547 patent"). They read as
1. A dynamic logic circuit, comprising:
a dynamic logic block;
a precharge transistor;
an evaluation transistor between the dynamic logic block and
the precharge transistor; and
a delay coupled to the precharge transistor for
simultaneously activating the precharge and evaluation
2. The dynamic logic circuit of claim 1 wherein the precharge
transistor includes a gate and a source-to-drain path, and
the delay is coupled to the gate of the precharge transistor.
4. The dynamic logic circuit of claim 1 including an
anti-float circuit coupled to the precharge transistor.
5. The dynamic logic circuit of claim 4 wherein the
anti-float circuit includes a latch.
6. The dynamic logic circuit of claim 1 wherein the precharge
and evaluation transistors each include a gate and a
source-to-drain path, and the dynamic logic circuit includes
a clock signal node coupled to the gates of the precharge and
evaluation transistors for receiving a clock signal having
precharge and evaluation phases for switching the precharge
transistor between an active state during the precharge phase
and an inactive state during a major portion of the
evaluation phase and for switching the evaluation transistor
between an inactive state during the precharge clock phase
and an active state during the evaluation clock phase.
7. The dynamic logic circuit of claim 6 wherein the delay is
coupled between the clock signal node and the gate of the
9. The dynamic logic circuit of claim 1 wherein the precharge
transistor is an N-channel transistor and the evaluation
transistor is a P-channel transistor.
21. A method of precharging and evaluating a dynamic logic
circuit, the method comprising the steps of:
switching a precharge transistor, using a clock signal,
between an active state during a precharge clock phase and an
inactive state during a major portion of an evaluation clock
switching an evaluation transistor between an inactive state
during the precharge clock phase and an active state during