U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
(hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 1045.)
2
(Docket Item No. 1043.)
3
(See Order Granting RIM’s Motion for Summary Judgment re: Invalidity; Denying RIM’sMotion for Summary Judgment re: Non-Infringement for All Claims; Granting RIM’s Motion forSummary Judgment re: Non-Infringement of Method Claims; Denying RIM’s Motion for SummaryJudgment re: Non-Willfulness, Docket Item No. 355.)
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONMformation Techs., Inc.,Plaintiff,v.Research in Motion Ltd., et al.,Defendants./ NO. C 08-04990 JW
ORDER GRANTING RIM’S RENEWEDMOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS AMATTER OF LAW; CONDITIONALLYGRANTING RIM’S MOTION FOR A NEWTRIAL; DENYING OTHER MOTIONS ASMOOT
Presently before the Court are RIM’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
1
andRIM’s Motion for a New Trial.
2
The Court conducted a hearing on August 6, 2012. Based on thepapers submitted to date and oral argument, the Court GRANTS RIM’s Renewed Motion forJudgment as a Matter of Law, conditionally GRANTS RIM’s Motion for a New Trial and DENIESas moot all other pending Motions.
A.Background
A detailed account of the factual background and procedural history of this case may befound in the Court’s November 18, 2010 Order.
3
The Court reviews the relevant procedural historyas it relates to the present Motions.
Case5:08-cv-04990-JW Document1074 Filed08/08/12 Page1 of 11
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
4
In addition to renewing its motion for judgment, RIM filed a further Second Motion forJudgment as a Matter of Law. (See Docket Item No. 1003.)2On June 14, 2012, the Court commenced a jury trial of this case. (See Docket Item No. 940.)On June 27, 2012, following the close of Mformation’s case-in-chief, RIM made a motion for judgment as a matter of law on multiple grounds. (See Docket Item No. 983.) The Court took themotion under submission and called upon RIM to present its case. After both sides rested, RIMrenewed its motion for judgment.
4
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), the Court took the motionunder submission, and submitted the case to the jury on special interrogatories.On July 13, 2012, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding that RIM was liable forcontributory and inducing infringement of Claims 1, 6, 21-25 and 27 of the ‘917 Patent. (SeeDocket Item No. 1026.) The jury awarded royalty damages to Mformation in the sum of $147,200,000.00. (Id.) Before excusing the jury, the Court set August 6, 2012 for a hearing onRIM’s pending motion for judgment. On July 17, 2012, the Court issued an order requiring furtherbriefing for the August 6 hearing. (hereafter, “July 17 Order,” Docket Item No. 1032.)
B.Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 governs motions for judgment as a matter of law(“JMOL”). Under Rule 50(a), “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial andthe court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find forthe party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) grant a motionfor judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.50(a)(1); see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149 (2000). Themotion must be made before the case is submitted to the jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2).If the court does not grant a motion for judgment made under Rule 50(a), the court isconsidered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court later deciding the legalquestions raised by the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). The standard for granting a renewedpost-verdict JMOL is the same as the standard for granting a pre-submission JMOL under Rule50(a). Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Elecs. Components, Inc., 274 F.3d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001). A
Case5:08-cv-04990-JW Document1074 Filed08/08/12 Page2 of 11
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
5
Claim 1 of the ‘917 Patent provides:A method for remotely managing a wireless device over a wireless network comprising aserver and the wireless device, the wireless network operable to communicatively connectthe server and the wireless device, the method comprising the steps of:transmitting registration information relating to the wireless device from the wirelessdevice to the server;verifying the registration information at the server; andwithout a request from the wireless device, performing the steps of:establishing a mailbox for the wireless device at the server,placing a command for the wireless device in the mailbox at the server,delivering the command from the mailbox at the server to the wireless deviceby establishing a connection between the wireless device and the server,transmitting the contents of the mailbox from the server to the wireless device,and accepting the contents of the mailbox at the wireless device, andexecuting the command at the wireless device;wherein the connection is established based on a threshold condition.
6
(See Third Claim Construction Order 4-5, Docket Item No. 800 (discussing the three sub-steps for “delivering the command,” and explaining that the Claim requires that the sub-steps “mustnecessarily be performed in the order they are presented”).)3party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if, under the governing law, there can be but onereasonable conclusion as to the verdict, and that is a finding in favor of the moving party. Id. Thecourt must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and should review allevidence in the record. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150.
C.Discussion1.Renewed Motion for Judgment
The ‘917 Patent claims systems and methods for remote control and management of wirelessdevices. Claim 1 of the ‘917 Patent
5
recites a process in which a command is placed in a mailbox ata server and in which the command is delivered to a wireless device. The step of “delivering thecommand” must be performed in three recited sub-steps.
6
The Court construed the meaning of someof the words and phrases used in these limitations. In summary, the Court ruled that the “deliveringthe command” step must be performed through a wireless connection that must be establishedbetween the server and the wireless device; that the connection had to be established based on a
Case5:08-cv-04990-JW Document1074 Filed08/08/12 Page3 of 11
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Judge vacates jury verdict in RIM v. Mformation
567
Reads
0
Readcasts
3
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
