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