Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company

Filing 1003

ORDER by Judge Alsup denying #1000 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THERASENSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant. AND CONSOLIDATED CASES. / / No. C 04-02123 WHA Consolidated with No. C 04-03327 WHA No. C 04-03732 WHA No. C 05-03117 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

Plaintiff Abbott Laboratories renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law and moves for a new trial. Abbott dedicates the majority of its motion to the written description requirement, but also requests a Rule 50 judgment on literal infringement, anticipation, and obviousness. In the alternative, Abbott moves for a new trial. Abbott's motions are DENIED. The instructions given to the jury were an accurate reflection of Federal Circuit law and the jury's verdict on literal infringement, anticipation, and obviousness was supported by sufficient evidence on the record. In addition, no prejudicial errors were made that would warrant a new trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2008.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE