United States District Court, D. Delaware
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
F. Bataillon, Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on a motion for judgment as a
matter of law filed by defendants TCL Communication
Technology Holdings Limited, TCT Mobile (US), Inc., TCT
Mobile Limited, and TCT Mobile, Inc. (collectively,
“TCL”) (D.I. 502).
renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of
noninfringement and invalidity under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 50(b). This action was tried to a jury from October
30, 2018, to November 8, 2018, on IP Bridge's claim that
TCL's accused mobile phone devices infringed claims 9 and
12 of U.S. Patent No. 8, 385, 239 (“the '239
patent”) and claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,
351, 538 (“the '538 patent”). The jury found
that TCL infringes all four asserted claims, found all four
claims valid, and awarded damages in the amount of $950, 000
for both patents. D.I. 487, Jury Verdict (sealed).
first argues that a judgment of non-infringement should be
granted under Rule 50(b). It contends that IP Bridge failed
to prove that each and every one of the requirements of the
asserted claims were met by the accused products and argues
that that the narrow exception to the requirements for
proving infringement carved out in Fujitsu Ltd. v.
Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010), does not
apply here. It argues that IP Bridge showed merely
that the asserted claims were essential to the LTE standard,
which was never contested. It relies on the testimony of IP
Bridge's expert, Dr. Paul Min, contending that he stated
that an express limitation of the claims was not really
required. For the '538 patent, it points to Dr. Min's
testimony that there must be code somewhere that met the
limitation in question (the “orthogonality”
limitation) and his purported failure to identify the
limitation. TCL contends Dr. Min's analysis was
insufficient as a matter of law to prove literal infringement
and because IP Bridge's showing of literal infringement
was based only on Dr. Min's analysis, the jury's
literal infringement finding verdict should be set aside and
judgment should be entered in TCL's favor.
also contends that it is entitled to a judgment of invalidity
of the '239 patent, arguing it proved by clear and
convincing evidence that the asserted claims were obvious. It
argues that IP Bridge's arguments as to the
non-obviousness of the '538 patent lack merit. TCL
contends that its expert's testimony regarding the scope
and content of the prior art; the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art; and the level of
ordinary skill in the art were unrebutted by IP Bridge and it
further contends IP Bridge provided no evidence of any
secondary considerations (or objective indicia) of
non-obviousness. Instead, it argues that IP Bridge's
arguments are insufficient as a matter of law to defeat the
TCL's asserted combinations and contends a judgment of
invalidity as a matter of law should be entered in TCL's
opposition, IP Bridge argues that the jury's findings are
supported by sufficient evidence.
Standard of Review
of the regional circuit-here the Third Circuit-governs the
standards for deciding motions for JMOL under Fed.R.Civ.P.
50(b) and new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). See WBIP,
LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d
1300, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Under Rule 50(b), in ruling on a
renewed motion, “the court may: (1) allow judgment on
the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new
trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). A judgment as a matter of law
is appropriate when “the verdict is not supported by
legally sufficient evidence.” Lightning Lube, Inc.
v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1166 (3d Cir. 1993). In the
Third Circuit, a “court may grant a judgment as a
matter of law contrary to the verdict only if ‘the
record is critically deficient of the minimum quantum of
evidence' to sustain the verdict.” Acumed LLC
v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199, 211 (3d
Cir. 2009) (quoting Gomez v. Allegheny Health Servs.,
Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir.1995)).
considering that issue the court ‘may not weigh the
evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or
substitute its version of the facts for the jury's
version.'” Id. (quoting Lightning
Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1166 (3d
Cir.1993)). “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. Auth., 497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). A renewed post-verdict JMOL
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 50(b)
“may not be made on grounds not included in the earlier
[Rule 50(a)] motion.” Duro-Last, Inc. v. Custom
Seal, Inc., 321 F.3d 1098, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
prove literal infringement, a patent owner must prove that
every element of the claim is present in the accused device.
Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S.
17, 29 (1997). “If an accused product operates in
accordance with a standard, then comparing the claims to that
standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused
product.” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620
F.3d at 327. “An accused infringer is free to either
prove that the claims do not cover all implementations of the
standard or to prove that it does not practice the
standard.” Id. However, if the relevant
section of the standard is ...