GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.

Filing 545

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GPNE'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 528 . Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 10/21/14. (lhklc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
GPNE CORP.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART GPNE’S MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW

At the close of Apple’s affirmative and defensive cases, GPNE moved for judgment as a
matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) on many issues, including
anticipation, enablement, written description, and statutory bars. ECF No. 528. Pursuant to the
parties’ stipulation, the parties did not file oppositions. ECF No. 514.
On October 20, 2014, Apple’s counsel agreed with the Court that a jury instruction on
statutory bars should not be given to the jury. See Tr. at 1607:16-20. Similarly, Apple’s counsel
conceded that Apple’s only invalidity witness did not testify as to anticipation. See id. at 1608:121609:13. Furthermore, while Apple’s proposed final jury instructions filed on July 15, 2014 (ECF
No. 335) included an instruction on enablement, Apple’s October 13, 2014 proposed final jury
instructions (ECF No. 461) did not.
As a result, the Court gave Apple an opportunity to file an opposition to GPNE’s motion for
judgment as a matter of law as to anticipation, enablement, written description, and statutory bars

28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GPNE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER
OF LAW

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

by 8:00 A.M. on October 21, 2014, if Apple so chose. ECF No. 533. The Court denied the
remainder of GPNE’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Id.
On October 21, 2014, Apple filed an opposition, which addressed only the issue of written
description. ECF No. 535. Apple’s opposition did not address anticipation, enablement, or
statutory bars. In light of Apple’s decision not to oppose GPNE’s motion on these issues, Apple
counsel’s statements on October 20, 2014 about the scope of Apple’s invalidity arguments in
connection with final jury instructions, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS GPNE’s
motion for judgment as a matter of law as to anticipation, enablement, and statutory bars.
As to written description, after considering all of the evidence presented at trial and the
parties’ briefing, the Court hereby DENIES GPNE’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to
written description.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 21, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART GPNE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER
OF LAW