Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. Lenovo International et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 1832 Asus Computer International's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in Favor of all Claims and Causes of Action Alleged Against It. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 09/26/2011. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES,
L.L.C., a Utah Limited Liability Company,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING ASUS
RENEWED MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW IN FAVOR OF ALL CLAIMS
AND CAUSES OF ACTION
ALLEGED AGAINST IT
SONY ELECTRONICS INC., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-CV-64 TS
This matter is before the Court on Defendant ASUS Computer International’s (“ACI”)
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in Favor of all Claims and Causes of Action
Alleged Against It. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion.
In this matter, Plaintiff alleged that ACI infringed three of its patents. After the close of
Plaintiff’s evidence, ACI moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that there was
insufficient evidence to find infringement.1 The Court denied the Motion.2
The jury ultimately found that ACI infringed one of Plaintiff’s patents.3 As a result of
that infringement, the jury awarded damages in favor of Plaintiff and against ACI in the amount
Defendant ACI now renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that it is
entitled to judgment because Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish
infringement by ACI.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, a court should render judgment as a matter of law when “a party
has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a
reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”5 A party which has made a motion for
judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) prior to a jury verdict may renew that motion under
Rule 50(b) after judgment is rendered.
Docket No. 1765.
Docket No. 1789.
Docket No. 1802.
“In [entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law], the court must draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence.”6 “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the
evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of
The Tenth Circuit has made it clear that judgment as a matter of law is to be “cautiously
and sparingly granted,”8 and is only appropriate when there is no way to legally justify a jury
verdict. Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only “[i]f there is no legally sufficient
evidentiary basis . . . with respect to a claim or defense . . . under the controlling law,”9 or if “the
evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences which may support
the opposing party’s position.”10 “Judgment as a matter of law is improper unless the evidence
so overwhelmingly favors the moving party as to permit no other rational conclusion.”11
With this standard in mind, the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion must be denied.
Though the evidence concerning ACI was limited, the Court finds that there is evidence to
Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554-555 (1990).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 547 (10th Cir. 1996).
Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 172 F.3d 1232, 1241 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting
Finley v. United States, 82 F.3d 966, 968 (10th Cir.1996).
Shaw v. AAA Eng’g & Drafting, 213 F.3d 519, 529 (10th Cir. 2000).
support the jury’s finding that ACI infringed. This conclusion is not altered by the recent
settlements entered into by the parties.
It is therefore
ORDERED that ACI’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Docket No.
1832) is DENIED.
DATED September 26, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
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?