Eolas Technologies v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al, 6:09cv446 (7/19/12)
Alcatel-Lucent v. Amazon, 6:90cv422 (7/30/12)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Holdings: Motions for Judgment As A Matter of Law DENIED
As readers will recall, Alcatel-Lucent and Eolas were two defense verdicts in Chief Judge Leonard Davis' court this spring. Last month Judge Davis issued orders on the assorted postverdict motions in the case and affirmed the jury's verdicts, finding in every case that "there was a sufficient evidentiary basis and substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict".
In Alcatel-Lucent, after a five-day trial, the jury found that the defendants did not infringe the asserted claims of the patents, and that two of the asserted claims were invalid as both anticipated and obvious. As I noted above, on each issue raised in the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law, Judge Davis found that there was evidence to support the jury's decision. Judge Davis also denied the motion for new trial, finding that even taking Alcatel's allegations (that Defendants "used misdirection and emotional tactics to prejudice the jury against Alcatel") as true, the Defendants' behavior during trial was not so prejudicial that it necessitated a new trial.
In Eolas, Judge Davis decided to conduct the trial in stages, with invalidity going first, followed by separate infringement trials. After a four day invalidity-only trial, the jury found the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit to be invalid. Judge Davis rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the testimony on these issues was substantively lacking, and then concluded that the evidence provided a sufficient basis for a reasonable juror to find that the patents were invalid. He then rejected the plaintiff's claim that the jury was "confused and based its verdict on passion and prejudice rather than the relevant evidence."