CardSoft v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc., 2:08cv098 (9/30/13)
Judge: Roy Payne
Holding: Postjudgment Motions
On June 8, 2012, a Marshall jury in Judge Roy Payne’s returned a verdict finding that Defendants VeriFone Systems, Inc.and VeriFone, Inc. (collectively, “VeriFone”) infringed CardSoft's asserted claims. The jury also found that the asserted claims were not InValid as AnticiPated. (Not capitalized as such - I just thought it was interesting that the PlainTiff and the DefenDant both had those DoubleBarrelled names).Anyway, the jury awarded $13,148,958.00 in damages for VeriFone’s infringement, and applied a running royalty rate of $3.00 per unit.
Judge Payne recently ruled on the Defendants Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Corrected Motion for New Trial. With respect to the infringement verdict, Judge Payne concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding. Interestingly, Judge Payne was presented with a complaint that the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law contained a ground that was not included in the motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). The court agreed that the pre-verdict motion was not sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice of the particular grounds that it was now urging, and also noted that the original basis for the judgment as a matter of law was not reurged in the renewed motion.