AVM Technologies LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 632

MEMORANDUM ORDER Granting 409 MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding Issue Preclusion, Denying 419 MOTION for Summary Judgment Of No Damages Based On Issue Preclusion (see Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/17/2017. (ksr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

AVM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff;

v.

Civil Action No. 15-33-RGA

INTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Issue
Preclusion (D.I. 409) and related briefing (D.I. 410, 494, 523) and Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment ofNo Damages Based on Issue Preclusion (D.I. 419) and related briefing
(D.l. 420, 482, 526). The Court heard oral argument on April 12, 2017. For the reasons that
follow, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I.
409) is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 419) is DENIED.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw."

FED.

R. Crv. P. 56(a). When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court
must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Wishkin

v. Potter, 4 76 F .3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). A dispute is "genuine" only if the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986).

Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, requires a finding that "(l) the identical issue was
previously adjudicated; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the previous determination was
necessary to the decision; and (4) the party being precluded from relitigating the issue was fully
represented in the prior action." Raytech Corp. v. White, 54 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 1995).
In previous litigation between the same Plaintiff and Defendant, I granted Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment of No Damages after finding that Plaintiff had "no evidence with
which to prove damages, and [did] not seek other relief." (Civ. Act. No. 10-610-RGA
("AVMl "), D.I. 294). The issue adjudicated in AVMl, therefore, was that Plaintiff could not
prove damages with respect to the accused products in AVMl based on the evidence put forth in
AVMl.
Defendant's issue preclusion defense is based on its contention that Plaintiff "previously
sought a lump-sum payment that would compensate it for all alleged infringement of the '547
patent by Intel, both past and future." (D.I. 420 at 9). According to Defendant, this case
presents the same issue because Plaintiff is again seeking a reasonable royalty payment for
infringement of the '547 patent. (Id. at 10). If Plaintiff had successfully won on damages in
AVMl, Defendant contends, Plaintiff would not be able to seek damages for infringement of the
same patent in the instant case.

(Id. at 9).

Whether Plaintiff would be able to seek additional damages in this hypothetical is
irrelevant, however, because Plaintiff did not win damages in AVMl. In Defendant's
hypothetical, the issue adjudicated would have been damages, past and future, for infringement
of the '547 patent. The issue decided in AVMl was much narrower. It was whether Plaintiff
had sufficient evidence of damages to avoid summary judgment on its suit against two particular
accused products. Had the case gone to the jury, and had the jury awarded a lump sum, I would
2

now have to decide whether the jury's damages verdict covered non-accused products. But the
jury did not have a chance to pass on that, and neither did I in the various rulings leading up to
the exclusion of all of Plaintiff's damages evidence.
The damages issues in AVMl and the instant case do not present the identical issue. It
follows that Defendant's issue preclusion defense must fail. Therefore, I will deny Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment of No Damages Based on Issue Preclusion and grant Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Issue Preclusion.

Entered this

3

lL

day of April, 2017.