Prism Technologies v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.

Filing 588

MEMORANDUM OPINION - This matter is before the Court on defendant, Sprint Spectrum L.P.'s ("Sprint"), post trial motions. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
PRISM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.,
)
d/b/a SPRINT PCS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:12CV123

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on defendant, Sprint
Spectrum L.P.’s (“Sprint”), post trial motions.

Presently

pending in this case are defendant’s renewed motion for judgment
as a matter of law (Filing No. 490), motion for new trial (Filing
No. 486), and motion for relief filed pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b), or in the alternative, motion for leave to
supplement the motion for new trial (Filing No. 576).

All

motions have been fully briefed and are ready for disposition.
After reviewing the motions, briefs, indices of evidence, and
applicable law, the Court finds as follows.
I. Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
In patent cases, a motion for judgment as a matter
of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) is reviewed under the law of the
regional circuit.

Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc., 734

F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

When considering a motion for

judgment as a matter of law, a court “must determine whether or
not the evidence was sufficient to create an issue of fact for
the jury.”
1979).

Lane v. Chowning, 610 F.2d 1385, 1388 (8th Cir.

The Court will grant a motion for judgment as a matter of

law “when all the evidence points one way and is susceptible of
no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the nonmoving
party.”

Ehrhardt v. Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 21 F.3d 266, 269

(8th Cir. 1994).

In considering the motion, the Court views the

record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

Wash

Solutions, Inc. v. PDQ Mfg., Inc., 395 F.3d 888, 892 (8th Cir.
2005).

The Court must also assume that all conflicts in the

evidence were resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and the
Court must assume as proved all facts that the prevailing party’s
evidence tended to prove.
772 (8th Cir. 2003).

E.E.O.C. v. Kohler Co., 335 F.3d 766,

The motion should be denied unless the

Court concludes that no reasonable juror could have returned a
verdict for the nonmoving party.

Billingsley v. City of Omaha,

277 F.3d 990, 995 (8th Cir. 2002).
Sprint alleges that Prism failed to offer legally
sufficient evidence at trial that Sprint infringes the asserted
patents.

Sprint’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law

focuses on Prism’s theory that third-party AAV backhaul providers
-2-

satisfy the “Internet Protocol Network” limitations.

Sprint

argues that it does not control the third-party AAV backhaul
providers or its customers who operate the client computer
device; therefore, it does not infringe the asserted claims.
Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party, the Court finds that Prism presented sufficient
evidence at trial that a reasonable juror could find that Sprint
infringed the asserted patents.

A reasonable juror could

determine, based on the evidence presented at trial, that Sprint
alone performed the steps to control access to protected computer
resources provided over an untrusted internet protocol network.
In addition, the claims do not require Prism to show that Sprint
controls its customers to prove infringement.

As a result, the

Court will deny Sprint’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter
of law.
II. Motion for New Trial
A motion for new trial is governed by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59.

The standard for granting a new trial is

whether the verdict is against “the great weight of the
evidence.”

Butler v. French, 83 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 1996).

In evaluating a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a),
the “key question is whether a new trial should have been granted

-3-

to avoid a miscarriage of justice.”

McKnight By & Through Ludwig

v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396, 1400 (8th Cir. 1994).
After reviewing th facts, evidence, and the relevant
law, the Court cannot say that the jury’s verdict was against the
great weight of the evidence.

Therefore, the Court will deny the

defendant’s motion for new trial.
III. Motion for Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), “a court
may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding” for various reasons.

Sprint

moves this Court to set aside the judgment pursuant to Rule
60(b)(5) and (6), which authorizes a court to relieve a party
when “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
any other reason that justifies relief.”

“Rule 60(b) ‘provides

for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an
adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.’”

Atkinson v.

Prudential Property Co., Inc., 43 F.3d 367, 371 (8th Cir.
1994)(quoting United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir.
1986)(per curiam)).

Relief may be granted “only where

exceptional circumstances have denied the moving party a full and

-4-

fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented the
moving party from receiving adequate redress.”

Harley v. Zoesch,

413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005)(citing Atkinson, 43 F.3d at
373)).
Sprint alleges that the Court altered the claim
construction for “authentication server” when the Court answered
a jury question in the T-Mobile trial (See Prism Technologies LLC
v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 8:12CV124).

The Court did not change the

claim construction by answering the jury’s question.

In

addition, Sprint did not present a non-infringement theory at
trial regarding the authentication server.

Sprint now wants to

rely on an answer to a jury question from a trial with different
systems and evidence.

Sprint has failed to show an exceptional

circumstance for which relief could be granted.

As a result, the

Court will deny Sprint’s motion for relief from judgment under
Rule 60(b), or in the alternative, motion for leave to supplement
Sprint’s motion for new trial.
A separate order will be entered in accordance with
this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 9th day of December, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-5-