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)

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