I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 906

ORDER denying Defendants' 831 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Non-Infringement. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 4/2/13. (mwin, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CCJURT FILED FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRQINI^Norfolk Division APR " 2 2013 CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT I/P ENGINE, INC., NORFOLK, VA Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:llcv512 V. AOL INC., et aL, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants' Renewed Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law on Non-Infringement (ECF No. 831), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). As an alternative to granting the Defendants' Renewed Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law on Non-Infringement, the Defendants seek a new trial on infringement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(a). Rule 50 permits a district court, if it "finds that the jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on thatissue" to "resolve the issue against theparty... [or] grant a motion forjudgment as a matter of law[.]" F.R.C. P. 50(a). As to motions under Rule 50, only admissible evidence can be considered when determining whether there is a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to support a jury's verdict. Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 454 (U.S. 2000). Rule 59(a) instructs that "[t]he 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 courtf.]" As a general matter, disturbing a jury's verdict by ordering a new trial under Rule 59(a) is an extreme remedy only warranted in a narrow set of circumstances: On such a motion it is the duty of the judge to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, ifhe is ofthe opinion that [1] the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, or [2] is based upon evidence which is false, or [3] will result in a miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the direction of a verdict. Atlas FoodSys. &Servs. v. Crane Nat'l Vendors, 99 F.3d 587, 594 (4th Cir. 1996). Further, "[o]n aRule 59 motion, courts may make credibility judgments in determining the clear weight ofthe evidence." Attardlndus. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119119 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2010) (citation omitted). Finally, "the court will search the record for evidence that could reasonably lead the jury to reach its verdict, drawing all reasonable inferences infavor ofthe verdict winner." 12 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil ยง 59.13 (3d ed. 1997). Having reviewed the parties' memoranda, the Court first finds that there is alegally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict. Furthermore, the Court finds that the verdict is not against the clear weight ofthe evidence, nor was the verdict ofthe jury based on evidence that is false, or will a miscarriage ofjustice result. Defendants have raised issues that have already been resolved by the Court in prior rulings and orders. Accordingly, Defendants' Renewed Motion for a Judgment as a Matter ofLaw on Non-Infringement (ECF No. 831) is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy ofthis Order to counsel and parties of record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Norfolk, Virginia April X^, 2013 Raymond A. Jackson United States District Judge