i4i Inc. was later joined as a co-plaintiff. For ease of reference, both i4i entities will be referred to
collectively as "i4i."
All of the asserted claims at trial were method claims.
3continued in the latest version of WORD, “Word 2007.” On March 8, 2007 i4i LP filed this action
alleging that Microsoft infringed the ‘449 patent. A jury trial commenced on May 11, 2009. At trial,i4i contended that Microsoft’s use of certain WORD 2003 and all of WORD 2007 products for processing XML documents with custom XML elements infringed claims 14, 18, and 20 of the ‘449 patent. i4i further argued that Microsoft’s infringement of the patent was willful. Microsoft
claimed that its WORD products did not infringe the patent and that the patent was invalid.Following a seven day trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the patent valid and infringed andawarding i4i $200,000,000 in damages. The Court also conducted a bench trial regardingMicrosoft’s additional equitable defenses of laches and inequitable conduct.
MICROSOFT’S MOTIONS FOR JMOL & NEW TRIAL
“The grant or denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law is a procedural issue notunique to patent law, reviewed under the law of the regional circuit in which the appeal from thedistrict court would usually lie.”
Summit Tech. Inc. v. Nidek Co.
, 363 F.3d 1219, 1223 (Fed. Cir.2004). In the Fifth Circuit, JMOL may not be granted unless “there is no legally sufficientevidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as the jury did.”
Hiltgen v. Sumrall
, 47 F.3d 695, 700(5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). A court reviews all the evidence in the record andmust draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, however, a court may not makecredibility determinations or weigh the evidence, as those are solely functions of the jury.
Case 6:07-cv-00113-LED Document 412 Filed 08/11/2009 Page 3 of 65