Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

Filing 482

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, Order by Judge Alsup denying 473 Motion for Directed Verdict; finding as moot 474 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CONCEPTUS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS
A MATTER OF LAW

HOLOGIC, INC.,
Defendant.
/

15
16

No. C 09-02280 WHA

In light of the jury verdict in this action, plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law

17

(Dkt. No. 474) is MOOT. Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. No. 473) is

18

DENIED as follows.

19

Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 271(c) that defendant

20

does not indirectly infringe claims 37 and 38 of United States Patent Number 6,634,361 is

21

DENIED. There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which a reasonable jury could find

22

that plaintiff proved indirect infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. Sufficient

23

evidence also was adduced to support the jury’s finding that plaintiff proved a reasonable royalty

24

rate of 20% by a preponderance of the evidence.

25

Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 102 that

26

claims 37 and 38 of the ’361 patent were anticipated by the Brundin 1983 reference is DENIED.

27

There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which a reasonable jury could find that

28

1

defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the elements of claims 37 and 38

2

were disclosed in the Brundin 1983 reference.

3

Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 102 that

4

claims 37 and 38 of the ’361 patent were anticipated by the Brundin 1987 reference is DENIED.

5

There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which a reasonable jury could find that

6

defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the elements of claims 37

7

and 38 were disclosed in the Brundin 1987 reference.

8

Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 102 that

9

claims 37 and 38 of the ’361 patent were anticipated by the Schmitz-Rode 1993 reference is
DENIED. There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which a reasonable jury could find

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

that defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the elements of claims 37

12

and 38 were disclosed in the Schmitz-Rode 1993 reference.

13

Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 102 that

14

claims 37 and 38 of the ’361 patent were anticipated by the Schmitz-Rode 1994 reference is

15

DENIED. There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which a reasonable jury could find

16

that defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the elements of claims 37

17

and 38 were disclosed in the Schmitz-Rode 1994 reference.

18

Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 103 that the subject

19

matter of claims 37 and 38 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the

20

time the invention was made is DENIED. There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from

21

which a reasonable jury could find that defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing

22

evidence that the asserted claims were obvious.

23

Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 112 that

24

claims 37 and 38 of the ’361 patent are invalid for lack of enablement under is DENIED. There

25

was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which a reasonable jury could find that defendant

26

failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the ’361 patent did not enable the full scope

27

of claims 37 and 38.

28
2

1

Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that under 35 U.S.C. 112 that

2

claims 37 and 38 of the ’361 patent are invalid for inadequate written description is DENIED.

3

There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which a reasonable jury could find that

4

defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the ’361 patent would not have

5

demonstrated to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the inventors

6

possessed the full scope of the inventions of claims 37 and 38.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: October 18, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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