Microchip Technology Incorporated v. Aptiv Services US LLC

Filing 369

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Joshua D. Wolson on 5/6/2022. (cna, )

Download PDF
Case 1:17-cv-01194-JDW Document 369 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14657 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:17-cv-01194-JDW Plaintiff, v. APTIV SERVICES US LLC, Defendant. MEMORANDUM On April 7, 2022, the Court asked Microchip if it dropped the ‘708 Patent claims, and Microchip confirmed that it had. During trial, neither Party presented any evidence on the ‘708 Patent. Both focused solely on claims 23–25 of the ‘243 Patent. The Court provided the Parties with a verdict form that only referenced claims 23–25 of the ‘243 Patent. The Parties had an opportunity to object and did not do so. The Court sent a final verdict form that only referenced claims 23–25 of the ‘243 Patent to the jurors. The jury decided that Aptiv did not infringe claims 23–25 of the ‘243 Patent and that claims 23–25 were valid. Aptiv now argues that the Court should enter a judgment in favor of Aptiv with respect to Microchip’s infringement claims for the ‘708 Patent and the entirety of the ‘243 Patent. The Court will not do so. The nub of this dispute is that Aptiv wants to maximize the estoppel effect of this judgment. But the effect of Microchip abandoning its claims with respect to the ‘708 Patent and certain ‘243 Patent claims is an issue that the Court need not decide. The Court merely has to decide what the form of judgment says. Should Microchip assert claims against Aptiv that Microchip elected not to present to the jury, the Parties can present these same arguments at that time. Case 1:17-cv-01194-JDW Document 369 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 14658 For now, the Court will enter a form of judgment consistent with the verdict form sent to the jurors. Such an approach is the norm. See Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 431 F. Supp. 2d 442, 450 (D. Del. 2006) (entering a judgment that excluded dismissed claims); (compare D.I. 3673 (verdict form) with 367-4 (accompanying form of judgment); see also D.I. 367-6 (entering judgment “as set out in the verdict form.”).) Aptiv has not cited any case or authority to the contrary, and the Court sees no reason to depart from the norm. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joshua D. Wolson JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J. May 6, 2022 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?