I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 905

ORDER denying Defendants' 820 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Invalidity. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 4/2/13. (mwin, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COtfRT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

rlLhU

Norfolk Division

APR -2 2013
I/P ENGINE, INC.,

CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK, VA

Plaintiff,

y

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:llcv512

AOL INC., etal.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court isDefendants' Renewed Motion for a Judgment as a Matter ofLaw on

Invalidity (ECF No. 820), pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 50(b). As an alternative

to granting Defendants' Renewed Motion for aJudgment as aMatter ofLaw on Invalidity, the
Defendants seek a new trial on invalidity, pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure Rule

59(a). Rule 50 permits adistrict court, ifit "finds that the jury would not have alegally
sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue" to "resolve the issue against the

party...[or] grant amotion for judgment as amatter oflaw[.]" F.R.C. P. 50(a). As to motions
under Rule 50, only admissible evidence can be considered when determining whether there is a

legally sufficient evidentiary basis to support ajury's verdict. Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S.
440, 454 (U.S. 2000). Rule 59(a) instructs that "[t]he court may, on motion, grant anew trial on
all or some ofthe issues-and to any party.. .after ajury trial, for any reason for which a new trial
has heretofore been granted inan action atlaw in federal court[.]" As a general matter,

disturbing ajury's verdict by ordering anew trial under Rule 59(a) is an extreme remedy only
warranted in a narrow set of circumstances:

On such amotion it is the duty of the judge to set aside the verdict and grant a
new Mai if he is of the opinion that [1] the verdict is against the clear weight of

TeSnce or [2] is based upon evidence which is false, or [3] will result in a
mLarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which
would prevent the direction ofaverdict.

Atlas FoodSys. &Servs. v. Crane Nat'l Vendors, 99 F.3d 587,594 (4th Cir. 1996). Further,

«[o]n aRule 59 motion, courts may make credibilityjudgments in determining the clear weight
ofthe evidence." Attardlndus. v. UnitedStates Fire Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119119

(E.D. Va. Nov. 9,2010) (citation omitted). Finally, "the court will search the record for
evidence that could reasonably lead the jury to reach its verdict, drawing all reasonable

inferences in favor ofthe verdict winner." 12 Moore's Federal Practice -Civil §59.13 (3d
ed. 1997).

Having reviewed the parties' memoranda, the Court first finds that there is alegally
sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict on anticipation as well as the Court's
determination on non-obviousness. Furthermore, the Court finds that the jury's verdict on

anticipation and the Court's determination on non-obviousness are not against the clear weight of
the evidence, nor based on evidence that is false, or will result in amiscarriage ofjustice.
Defendants have raised issues that have already been resolved by the Court in prior rulings and
orders. Accordingly, Defendants' Renewed Motion for aJudgment as aMatter of Law on

Invalidity (ECF No. 820) is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send acopy ofthis Order to
counsel and parties of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

\M!
Raymond A.Sackson

Norfolk, Virginia

April J ,2013

United States District Judge