California Berry Cultivars, LLC v. The Regents of the University of California

Filing 370

ORDER denying in part 355 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Chhabria on 7/5/2017. (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2017)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA BERRY CULTIVARS,
LLC, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-02477-VC
ORDER DENYING IN PART CBC'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW AND MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL
Re: Dkt. No. 355

Defendants.
CALIFORNIA BERRY CULTIVARS,
LLC,
Cross-Complainant,
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA,
Cross-Defendant.

1.

Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict that Larson converted UC's books

and records regarding the Strawberry Breeding Program. See, e.g., TX 288; Jury Trial Tr. 798:519. Therefore, CBC's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial is denied
with respect to this claim.
2.

Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict that Larson converted UC's

unreleased varieties. See, e.g., TX 85, 153, 176, 201; Jury Trial Tr. 431:1-5. Therefore, CBC's
motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial is denied with respect to this

claim.
3.

Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict that Larson knowingly acted

against UC's interest when he engaged in CBC activities. See, e.g., TX 55, 61, 85, 94, 123, 133,
172. Therefore, CBC's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial is denied
with respect to the claims against Larson for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty.
4.

With respect to the claim against CBC for intentional interference with Shaw and

Larson's Patent Agreements, substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict that UC was harmed
as a result of CBC's interference. See, e.g., TX 123, 231, 546; Jury Trial Tr. 659-60; 798-99.
Therefore, CBC's motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial is denied with
respect to this claim.
5.

With respect to patent infringement, substantial evidence supports the jury's

verdict that CBC, Shaw, and Larson imported and/or used the seeds and that the infringement
was willful. See, e.g., TX 153, 168, 247, 542; Dkt. No. 304-2 (Pellicer Depo. 37-38); Dkt. No.
314-1 (Vandenlangenberg Depo. 162, 219-20). However, the Court will hear argument on the
effect of Lexmark on the patent infringement claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 5, 2017
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2