Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories

Filing 455

Opinion & Order re #420 #422 . Signed by Judge Marco A. Hernandez on 3/13/2018. (jao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR NORTH

No. 3:17-cv-01781-HZ

AMERICA, INC., an Oregon Corporation,

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff,

v.

SEIRUS INNOVATIVE ACCESSORIES,
INC., a Utah corporation,

Defendant.
//
//
1- OPINION & ORDER

David R. Boyajian
David W. Axelrod
Brenna K. Legaard
Nicholas F. Aldrich, Jr
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Christopher S. Marchese
Seth M. Sproul
Michael A. Amon
Garrett K. Sakimae
Tucker N. Terhufen
Oliver J. Richards
Fish & Richardson P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Attorneys for Defendant

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Before the Court are the parties’ renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law
(“JMOL”) and motions for a new trial [420 & 422] under Rules 50 and 59 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 50, a party may file a JMOL if it “has been fully heard on an
issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for the party on that issue[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). If the court
denies a JMOL, then a party may renew the motion after trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). The court
may: “(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or
(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.” Id. Pursuant to Rule 59, the court may rule
on a motion for a new trial “after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore
been granted in an action at law in federal court[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1).

2- OPINION & ORDER

For the reasons stated at trial, the Court denies the parties’ renewed JMOLs and motions
for a new trial. Regarding Columbia’s motion, there were legally sufficient bases for the jury’s
verdicts of invalidity, the jury instructions on anticipation and obviousness were legally
sufficient, and Dr. Block’s testimony was properly admitted into evidence. With respect to
Seirus’s motion, the Court remains convinced that, regarding the issue of the relevant article of
manufacture under 35 U.S.C. § 289, the jury instructions and jury verdict were legally sufficient
and that the Court correctly determined the proper legal test. Accordingly, the parties’ motions
are DENIED.
Dated this

day of ______________________, 2018.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3- OPINION & ORDER