EMC Corporation, et al. v. Pure Storage Inc.

Filing 449

MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting #443 Motion for Judgment As A Matter of Law That EMC Has Failed To Introduce Evidence Sufficient To Prove Infringement Of Claim 32 Of The '464 Patent Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/15/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

EMC CORPORATION, EMC
INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, and EMC
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL,
Civil Action No. 13-1985-RGA
Plaintiffs,
v.
· PURE STORAGE, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pure seeks judgment as a matter oflaw that the accused products do not infringe claim 32
of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,464 ("the '464 patent") under the doctrine of equivalents ("DOE").
(D.I. 443). EMC argues that the testimony of its expert witness provides a sufficient basis from
which the jury could reasonably find that the accused product infringes claim 32 under the DOE.
(D.I. 444 at 4).
There is insufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that the
FlashArray infringes claim 32 of the '464 patent under the DOE. See FED. R. Crv. P. 50(a);

Buskirkv. Apollo Metals, 307 F.3d 160, 166 (3d Cir. 2002). EMC's expert's conclusoryDOE
testimony (Trial Tr. at 529:2-9) fails to provide the "particularized testimony and linking
argument" required by the Federal Circuit. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor

Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1996). EMC also did not present any evidence from which

. the jury could find equivalence on the basis of insubstantial differences or known
interchangeability. (See Trial Tr. at 525-30).
For the reasons stated above, Pure's motion for judgment as a matter of law (D.I. 443) is
GRANTED.

Entered this f)day of March, 2016.

~-~

United States District Judge

2