3had been independently invented by others (thus militating in favor of obviousness), despitethere being no possible grounds to distinguish between the two patents on this basis.For all these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in Defendants’ Rule 50(a) Motion onInvalidity (D.N. 776), Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant judgment as a matterof law on the issues of anticipation and obviousness or, alternatively, a new trial.
Judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) is required where a plaintiff fails to presentsubstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to rule in its favor.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b);
Konkelv. Bob Evans Farms
, 165 F.3d 275, 279 (4th Cir. 1999). A new trial should be granted, even if there is substantial evidence preventing a directed verdict, if the verdict is against the clearweight of the evidence, was based upon false evidence, or will result in a miscarriage of justice.
Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
, 144 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 1998). When considering a motionfor new trial, the court may weigh evidence and consider witness credibility.
In addition, itis well-established that a new trial should be granted based on errors in the admission or rejectionof evidence if the errors were prejudicial.
Bennett v. R&L Carriers Shared Servs., LLC
, 744F. Supp. 2d 494, 539 (E.D. Va. 2010).
CULLISS ANTICIPATES EACH ASSERTED CLAIM OF THE '420 AND '664PATENTS
As explained in Defendants’ Rule 50(a) Motion on Invalidity (D.N. 776), Culliss meetsevery limitation of every asserted claim. At trial, Defendants' validity expert, Dr. Ungar,explained how Culliss meets every limitation. (S
Trial Tr. 1346:10-1371:21.) For the majorityof these limitations, Dr. Ungar's testimony was undisputed. Plaintiff's validity expert, Dr.Carbonell, argued that Culliss does not anticipate the asserted claims solely because Culliss
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 821 Filed 12/18/12 Page 3 of 33 PageID# 21545