Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

259 F.Supp.3d 530

IMPERIUM IP HOLDINGS (CAYMAN), LTD.

v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.

Civil Action No. 4:14–CV–00371

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division.

Signed April 27, 2017

David Michael Saunders, S. Desmond Jui, Sruli Yellin, Fisch Sigler LLP, San Jose, CA, Jeffrey Saltman, John T. Battaglia, Roy William Sigler, Alan Michael Fisch, Fisch Sigler LLP, Washington, DC, Jennifer K. Robinson, Tensegrity Law Group, LLP, Redwood City, CA, Silvia Jordan, Fisch Sigler LLP, New York, NY, for Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd.

Jesse J. Jenner, Alexander Ernest Middleton, Ropes & Gray LLP, Christopher John Harnett, Kevin John Post, Matthew Richard Shapiro, Steven Pepe, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY, Clyde Moody Siebman, Siebman Burg Phillips & Smith LLP, Sherman, TX, Courtney Marie Cox, Samuel Lawrence Brenner, Scott Stephen Taylor, Ropes & Gray LLP, Boston, MA, John Frederick Bufe, Michael E. Jones, Potter Minton, a Professional Corporation, Tyler, TX, Rebecca R. Carrizosa, Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto, CA, for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and/or Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial (Dkt. # 337). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court denies Defendants' motion.

BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendants, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,271,884 (the "'884 Patent"), 7,092,029 (the "'029 Patent"), and 6,836,290 (the "'290 Patent"). On February 8, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Particularly, the jury found the following: (1) Defendants infringed Claims 1, 5, 14, and 17 of the '884 Patent ; (2) Defendants infringed Claims 1, 6, and 7 of the '029 Patent ; (3) Defendants willfully infringed the patents-in-suit; and (4) Claim 10 of the '290 Patent was invalid for obviousness (Dkt. # 253). The jury awarded $4,840,772 in damages for infringement of the '884 Patent and $2,129,608.50 in damages for infringement of the '029 Patent (Dkt. # 253). On August 24, 2016, the Court awarded enhanced damages for willful infringement and entered final judgment (Dkt. # 329; Dkt. # 330).

On September 21, 2016, Defendants filed their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (Dkt. # 337). On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. # 341). On October 24, 2016, Defendants filed a reply (Dkt. # 343). On November 3, 2016, Defendants filed a sur-reply (Dkt. # 346).

LEGAL STANDARDS

Judgment as a Matter of Law

Upon a party's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict, the Court should properly ask whether "the state of proof is such that reasonable and impartial minds could reach the conclusion the jury expressed in its verdict." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ; see also Am. Home Assurance Co. v. United Space All. , 378 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2004). "The grant or denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law is a procedural issue not unique to patent law, reviewed under the law of the regional circuit in which the appeal from the district court would usually lie." Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Grp., Inc. , 523 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008). "A JMOL may only be granted 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.' " Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 717 F.3d 1255, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Dresser–Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation, Inc. , 361 F.3d 831, 838 (5th Cir. 2004) ).

Under Fifth Circuit law, a court should be "especially deferential" to a jury's verdict and must not reverse the jury's findings unless they are not supported by substantial evidence. Baisden v. I'm Ready Prods., Inc. , 693 F.3d 491, 499 (5th Cir. 2012). "Substantial evidence is defined as evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions."

Threlkeld v. Total Petroleum, Inc. , 211 F.3d 887, 891 (5th Cir. 2000). A motion for judgment as a matter of law must be denied "unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelming in the movant's favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion." Baisden , 693 F.3d at 498 (citation omitted). However, "[t]here must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence in the record to prevent judgment as a matter of law in favor of the movant." Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care, Inc. , 493 F.3d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 2007).

In evaluating a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a court must "draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and cannot substitute other inferences that [the court] might regard as more reasonable." E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co. , 731 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). However, "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). "[T]he court should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that 'evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that the evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.' " Id. at 151, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (citation omitted).

Motion for a New Trial

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, a new trial may be granted to any party to a jury trial on any or all issues "for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. In considering a motion for a new trial, the Federal Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit. z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 507 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "A new trial may be granted, for example, if the district court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course." Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co. , 773 F.2d 610, 612–13 (5th Cir. 1985). "The decision to grant or deny a motion for a new trial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or a misapprehension of the law." Prytania Park Hotel, Ltd. v. Gen. Star Indem. Co. , 179 F.3d 169, 173 (5th Cir. 1999).

ANALYSIS

I. Judgment as a Matter of Law

Defendants move for judgment as a matter of law on the issues of infringement, validity of the '884 Patent and the '029 Patent, and damages. Defendants argue the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict.

A. Direct Infringement

To prove infringement of an asserted patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271, a plaintiff must show the presence of every element, or its equivalent, in the accused product or service. Lemelson v. United States , 752 F.2d 1538, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1985). First, the Court construes the asserted claim to determine its scope and meaning; and second, the construed claim must be compared to the accused device or service. Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc. , 659 F.3d 1121, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys., Inc. , 15 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ). "A determination of infringement is a question of fact that is reviewed for substantial evidence when tried to a jury."

ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co. , 501 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

1. Infringement of the '290 Patent

Defendants claim to be entitled to a judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law for the '290 Patent. Defendants contend that Plaintiff and its infringement expert, Dr. Cameron Wright, failed to do the following at trial: (1) identify each of the accused products for the '290 Patent ; (2) establish that the Samsung Galaxy S5 ("Galaxy S5") is a representative product for all products accused of infringing the '290 Patent ; (3) identify the documents (and portions of these documents) relied upon to show infringement for all products accused of infringing the '290 Patent ; (4) identify the portions of deposition testimony that Dr. Wright relied on to establish infringement of the '290 Patent ; (5) establish that the accused products actually practice the MIPI standard (Dkt. # 337 at p. 3).

The Court disagrees with Defendants' arguments and determines substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict finding of infringement. At trial, Dr. Wright asserted that Defendants' products contain every limitation of Claim 10 in the '290 Patent (Dkt. # 263, Feb. 2, 2016 A.M. Trial Tr. at 99:10–16). Specifically, Dr. Wright testified that Defendants infringe this claim with two models of computers, five models of tablets, and sixteen phone models, totaling twenty-three accused products (Dkt. # 263, Feb. 2, 2016 A.M. Trial Tr. at 87:21–88:2). Dr. Wright then stated:

[T]hese are a lot of models here, a lot of individual models. We can't walk through every one, so I've chosen as one example product, one representative, and since they all infringe in the same way, I can—I can walk through that product and you can apply it to the others.

(Dkt. # 263, Feb. 2, 2016 A.M. Trial Tr. at 88:5–9). As such, Dr. Wright chose the Galaxy S5 as a representative product for his infringement opinion. Defendants maintain that Dr. Wright improperly used the Galaxy S5 as a representative product without meeting Plaintiff's burden of establishing how the other accused products function and operate in the same way (Dkt. # 337 at p. 4). D...