SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. et al
Filing
1266
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - SynQors motion for JMOL is GRANTED-in-part and DENIED-in-part. The Court DENIES SynQors motion for JMOL on the validity issues of public use bar, on-sale bar, anticipation, obviousness, and written description. The Court GRANTS SynQors motion for JMOL on the validity issue of best mode. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 8/17/11. (ehs, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
SYNQOR, INC,
v.
ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.
§
§
§ CASE NO: 2:07-CV-497-TJW-CE
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the court is Plaintiff SynQor, Inc.‟s (“SynQor”) motion for judgment as a
matter of law (“JMOL”) on the issues relating to the validity of the patents-in-suit1 (Dkt. No.
865). Because the Court has only entered a partial judgment on the verdict, the Court considers
the pending motion as a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
Having carefully considered the submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds
that the motion should be GRANTED-in-part and DENIED-in-part.
The Court DENIES
SynQor‟s motion for JMOL on the issues of public use bar, on-sale bar, anticipation,
obviousness, and written description because there was sufficient conflicting evidence that
required submitting theses issues to the jury. The Court GRANTS SynQor‟s motion for JMOL
on the issue of best mode.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Near the close of Plaintiff‟s case-in-chief, the Court inquired on whether the parties were
willing to stipulate to filing their JMOLs in writing before the close of trial. (See 12/16 PM Tr.
at 53:24-54:21.) The parties agreed to stipulate that any JMOL filed by close of business on
1
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,072,190 (“the „190 patent”) (PTX1), 7,269,034 (“the „034 patent”) (PTX2),
7,272,021 (“the „021 patent”) (PTX3), 7,558,083 (“the „083 patent”) (PTX5), 7,564,702 (“the
„702 patent”) (PTX4).
1
December 21, 2010, would be considered timely filed. (See 12/20 AM Tr. at 163:23-167:9.) The
Court then instructed the parties that they were to file their JMOLs in writing by close of
business on December 21, 2010. (See id.) The Court allowed this stipulation to preserve the
parties right to file a post-trial Rule 50(b) motion. Taylor Pub. Co. v. Jostens, Inc., 216 F.3d 465,
471 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court then overruled all JMOLs made by the parties with respect to
sufficiency of the evidence or lack of the evidence, and informed the parties that they could
renew their JMOLs after the verdict if they wished. (See 12/20 9:30 PM Tr. at 3:22-4:4; 12/21
A.M. Tr. at 11:12-13:18.)
On December 21, 2010, the jury reached a verdict finding that Defendants Artesyn
Technologies, Inc. and Astec America Inc. (collectively “Astec”); Bel Fuse, Inc. (“Bel Fuse”);
Cherokee International Corp. and Lineage Power Corporation (collectively “Lineage”); Delta
Electronics, Inc. and Delta Products Corp. (collectively “Delta”); Murata Electronics North
America, Inc. and Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (collectively “Murata”); Murata Power
Solutions, Inc. (“MPS”); and Power-One, Inc. (“Power-One”)(collectively “the Fish
Defendants”) infringe various claims of the patents-in-suit. (See Dkt. No. 889, Jury Verdict).
The jury failed to find invalidity of any of the patents-in-suit.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for JMOL is a procedural issue not unique to patent law; thus, such motions are
reviewed under the law of the regional circuit. Summit Tech., Inc. v. Nidek Co., 363 F.3d 1219,
1223 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the Fifth Circuit, JMOL may only be granted if “there is no legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as the jury did.” Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47
F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) (stating
that JMOL may be granted only if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a
2
legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on [an] issue.”). In ruling on a motion for
JMOL, the court reviews all the evidence in the record and must draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the nonmoving party. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
150-51 (2000). The court, however, may not make credibility determinations or weigh the
evidence, as those are solely functions of the jury. Id. That is, the court grants “great deference
to a jury‟s verdict” and it should be overturned “only if, when viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict, the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of
one party that the court believes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at any contrary
conclusion.” Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation Inc., 361 F.3d 831, 838 (5th Cir. 2004).
IV.
DISCUSSION
Having carefully considered SynQor‟s arguments, the Court finds that because there
was sufficient conflicting evidence it was proper to submit the following issues to the jury:
(1) Whether the asserted claims are invalid because they were in public use more than
one year before the applicable priority date.
(2) Whether the asserted claims are invalid because they were on sale more than one year
before the applicable priority date.
(3) Whether the asserted claims are invalid because they were anticipated by the prior art.
(4) Whether the asserted claims are invalid because they would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the field at the time of the invention.
(5) Whether the asserted claims are invalid because they fail to meet the written
description requirement.
Accordingly, SynQor‟s motion for JMOL is DENIED as it relates to these validity issues.
The Court GRANTS SynQor‟s motion for JMOL as it relates to the best mode issue. A best
3
mode inquiry involves a two-step test. First, the fact-finder must determine whether, at the time
of filing the application, the inventor possessed a best mode for practicing the invention.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. ITC, 597 F.3d 1267, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2010). This inquiry is subjective,
focusing on the inventor‟s own personal preferences as of the application‟s filing date. Id.
Second, if the inventor possessed a best mode, the fact-finder must determine whether the
inventor concealed the preferred mode from the public. Id. This inquiry is objective, and the
question is whether the disclosure is adequate to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice
the best mode of the invention. Id.
The Court finds that Defendants failed to offer any evidence to support their best mode
defense. Defendants did not elicit any testimony at trial from Dr. Schlecht or anyone else that
would indicate that Dr. Schlecht (or his co-inventor on the „021 patent, Dr. Richard Farrington)
subjectively had a best mode of the invention in mind, nor that there was a failure to disclose an
alleged best mode. Moreover, Defendants have offered no evidence of deliberate concealment of
any alleged best mode of the inventions in the patents-in-suit. Accordingly, Defendants have
failed to carry their burden and the Court GRANTS SynQor‟s motion for JMOL as it relates to
the best mode issue.
V.
CONCLUSION
SynQor‟s motion for JMOL is GRANTED-in-part and DENIED-in-part. The Court
DENIES SynQor‟s motion for JMOL on the validity issues of public use bar, on-sale bar,
anticipation, obviousness, and written description. The Court GRANTS SynQor‟s motion for
JMOL on the validity issue of best mode.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 17th day of August, 2011.
4
__________________________________________
T. JOHN WARD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?