TEK Global S.R.L. et.al. v. Sealant Systems International Inc. et.al.

Filing 558

ORDER RE HEARING ON POST-TRIAL MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 7/18/2017. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2017)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEK GLOBAL, S.R.L., ET AL.,

Case No. 11-cv-00774-VC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE HEARING ON POSTTRIAL MOTIONS

v.
SEALANT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL,
INC, ET AL.,
Defendants.

The parties should be prepared to discuss the following issues at the upcoming hearing on
post-trial motions:
1.

The sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict on lost profits,

particularly with respect to TEK's manufacturing capacity and TEK's calculation of the amount
of profit expected from additional sales.
2.

The sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict on reasonable

royalties, particularly with respect to the entire market value rule and TEK's theory of "built in"
apportionment.
3.

Remittitur, judgment as a matter of law, and adjustments to the calculation of

supplemental prejudgment damages to account for the evidence regarding the Tesla devices.
4.

The possibility of error in TEK's product-to-product comparison at closing

argument, TEK's copying evidence, and the discussion of PTAB proceedings.
5.

Whether advancing theories of noninfringement and invalidity that are

undermined by one's own expert suggests that this is an "exceptional case" for the purposes of
35 U.S.C. § 285. See, e.g., Tr. at 736:2-739:24 (noninfringement); id. at 767:15-770:20

(invalidity).
6.

Irreparable harm and the inadequacy of legal remedies.

There will be no argument on the infringement and invalidity sections of the renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law, nor will there be argument on SSI's theories of error
arising from Dr. Mody's reliance on SSI's sale price, Dr. Mody's reliance on TEK's earlier
license, the scope of Mr. Keller's cross-examination, or the entire market value rule as it
appeared in the jury instructions or verdict form. The Court also sees no reason to deviate from
Judge Grewal's approach to the appropriate rate of pre- and post-judgment interest or (in the
event a permanent injunction is issued) the sunset provision, notice requirement, or notice
language.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2017
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2