Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House et al
Filing
979
ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White denying 954 , 965 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
No. C 08-02912 JSW
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
12
ABBYY SOFTWARE HOUSE, ET AL.,
13
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW
TRIAL
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
Now before the Court is the motion by Plaintiff Nuance Communications, Inc.
17
(“Nuance”) for judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial. This motion is
18
fully briefed and ripe for decision, and the Court finds the motion suitable for disposition
19
without oral argument. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for December 13,
20
2013, is VACATED. Having reviewed the parties’ pleadings, the relevant legal authority, and
21
the record in this case, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES the motion for
22
judgment as a matter of law, or in the alternative, motion for a new trial.
ANALYSIS
23
24
25
A.
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.
The Federal Circuit looks to regional circuit law in order to determine whether judgment
26
as a matter of law is appropriate. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Group, Inc., 554
27
F.3d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this circuit, “[j]udgment as a matter of law is proper if the
28
evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, allows only one
1
reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to that reached by the jury.” Acosta v.
2
City and County of San Francisco, 83 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1996).
3
The jury heard the same arguments now made again by Plaintiffs, heard the conflicting
witnesses presented, and rendered a verdict entirely in Defendants’ favor. Nuance bore the
6
burden of proof on their claims and the Court finds the uncontested instructions properly
7
advised the jury of the application of the Court’s constructions of terms to the technology as
8
explained by the parties’ substantial presentation of evidence and the interpretation of that
9
evidence by the parties’ experts. When the evidence presented at trial is construed in the light
10
most favorable to Defendants, a reasonable jury could have found in favor of the Defendants.
11
For the Northern District of California
experts’ testimony, reviewed the multitude of evidence presented, judged the credibility of all
5
United States District Court
4
Although the Court does not find Plaintiff waived any basis for its motion, the Court DENIES
12
Nuance’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
13
B.
14
Motion for a New Trial.
A court may grant a new trial “if ‘the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the
15
evidence, or is based upon evidence which is false, or to prevent, in the sound discretion of the
16
trial court, a miscarriage of justice.’” United States v. 4.0 Acres of Land, 175 F.3d 1133, 1139
17
(9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Oltz v. Saint Peter’s Community Hosp., 861 F.2d 1440, 1452 (9th Cir.
18
1988)). When considering a motion for a new trial, “[t]he judge can weigh the evidence and
19
assess the credibility of witnesses, and need not view the evidence from the perspective most
20
favorable to the prevailing party.” Landes Const. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d
21
1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987). A trial court may not, however, grant a new trial simply because it
22
disagrees with the jury’s verdict. 4.0 Acres of Land, 175 F.3d at 1139.
23
Upon review of the voluminous evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that the
24
verdict is consistent with the clear weight of the evidence. The Court also finds that the
25
additional language Nuance wanted to insert into the instructions regarding the axiom that “a
26
patent is not defined by its preferred embodiment” was an unnecessary addition to the standard
27
instructions. The Court properly instructed the jury that the patent’s claims define what is
28
2
1
covered by the patent and properly confined its instructions to fall within the scope of the jury’s
2
duties. The Court DENIES Nuance’s motion for a new trial.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 10, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?