Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 935

ORDER RE SCOPE OF NEW TRIAL re 914 MOTION Defendants A10 and Lee Chen's Motion for Entry of Judgment as to Brocade's Intentional Interference Punitive Damages Claim or, in the Alternative, for a Seprate Trial as to Patent Damages filed by Lee Chen, A10 Networks, Inc., 920 Notice (Other), filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on April 29, 2013. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, ) INC., ET AL., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) A10 NETWORKS, INC., ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) 18 19 Case No.: C 10-3428 PSG ORDER RE: SCOPE OF NEW TRIAL (Re: Docket Nos. 914, 920) At issue in this order are the parties’ cross-motions regarding the scope of a retrial set to begin on May 20, 2013. Following a jury's determination that A10 Networks, Inc. (“A10”) was 20 liable for several claims brought by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., et al (“Brocade”) and 21 22 Foundry Networks, LLC (“Foundry”), A10 moved for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on 23 those claims. That motion was denied. 1 But the court did grant A10’s alternative request for a new 24 trial on the patent damages award and on the punitive damages awarded for intentional interference 25 with contractual relations (“IICR”). 2 26 27 1 See Docket No. 845. 28 2 See id. 1 Case No.: C 10-03428 PSG ORDER A10 now moves the court to enter judgment on the IICR damages amount or in the 1 2 alternative to bifurcate the IICR issue from the patent damages determination. 3 Brocade opposes 3 the bifurcation and the entry of judgment on the IICR damages and alternatively moves for a new 4 trial on the IICR compensatory damages to be conducted simultaneously with the retrial on the 5 punitive damages and the patent damages. 4 6 Because of the rapidly approaching trial date, the court provides here only its decision and 7 8 9 will provide at a later date an order more completely reflecting its reasoning. The court DENIES Brocade’s motion for a new trial on the compensatory IICR damages because Brocade has not United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 shown that it is entitled to a new trial on that issue. Because the compensatory damages need not 11 be reconsidered, the court finds entry of judgment for the punitive damages is appropriate and 12 GRANTS A10’s motion. 5 In its order, the court will determine the constitutional maximum in 13 14 punitive damages to which Brocade is entitled and will enter judgment in that amount. The trial to commence on May 20, 2013 therefore will be limited to the retrial of patent damages in line with 15 16 the court’s January 10, 2013 order. 6 The parties have agreed to exchange identification of prior testimony and evidence to be 17 18 presented at the retrial by May 6, 2013 and to exchange objections by May 13, 2013. 7 The parties 19 currently are supposed to appear for a hearing on May 7, 2013. Having considered its calendar, the 20 court modifies the parties’ schedule as follows. By May 6, 2013, the parties shall exchange with 21 each other and file with the court their identifications of prior testimony and evidence to be 22 presented at the retrial. They shall exchange and file their objections no later than 5:00 p.m. on 23 24 3 See Docket No. 914. 25 4 See id. 26 5 See Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 285 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002). 27 6 See Docket No. 845. 28 7 See Docket No. 906. 2 Case No.: C 10-03428 PSG ORDER 1 Friday, May 10, 2013, and they shall appear for a pretrial conference at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2 14, 2013. The parties also shall file a joint pretrial statement no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 3 May 10, 2013 in line with the undersigned’s standing order. At the pretrial conference, the court 4 will resolve any evidentiary disputes and any outstanding issues between the parties. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 29, 2013 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No.: C 10-03428 PSG ORDER

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?