Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
April 16, 2010, Decided
[***1835] [*1328] LINN, Circuit Judge.
Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Communications, Inc., MCI Communications, Inc., and Verizon Business Global LLC (collectively [*1329] "Verizon") appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered after a jury found: (1) claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,574 ("the '574 patent") and claims 1, 3, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,104,711 ("the '711 patent") invalid; and (2) [**2] claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,430,275 ("the '275 patent"); claims 1, 19, 27, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,481 ("the '481 patent"); claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,137,869 ("the '869 patent"); and claims 12, 13, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,636,597 ("the '597 patent") not infringed by Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc., Cox Virginia Telecom, Inc., Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC, Coxcom, Inc., and Cox Communications, Inc. (collectively "Cox"). See Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., No. 08-CV-0157 (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2008) (judgment); Verizon Servs. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 08-CV-0157, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112734 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2008) (order denying cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial); Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., No. 08-CV-0157, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112736 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2008) (agreed order amending and clarifying the judgment). On appeal, both parties challenge the district court's denial of their respective motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for new trial. Because the evidence introduced at trial supports the jury's verdict, and because the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the scope of the claims, we affirm.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
602 F.3d 1325 *; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7772 **; 94 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1833 ***; 76 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 662
VERIZON SERVICES CORP., VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORP., and VERIZON BUSINESS GLOBAL LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COX FIBERNET VIRGINIA, INC., COX VIRGINIA TELECOM, INC., COX COMMUNICATIONS HAMPTON ROADS, LLC, COXCOM, INC., and COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants.
Prior History: [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in case no. 1:08-CV-157, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton.
Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109449 (E.D. Va., Sept. 3, 2008)
Patents, network, district court, infringement, asserted claim, invalid, anticipation, new trial, quality of service, prior art, database, parties, packet, candidate, invention, inventor, protocol, argues, communications, resources, substantial evidence, packet-switched, skill, terms, searching, switched, terminal, server, improper argument, expert testimony
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Trials, Judgment as Matter of Law, General Overview, Abuse of Discretion, Evidence, Admissibility, Procedural Matters, Rulings on Evidence, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Motions for New Trials, Postverdict Judgment, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Anticipation & Novelty, Specifications, Enablement Requirement, Standards & Tests, Jury Trials, Jury Instructions, Harmless & Invited Errors, Harmless Error Rule, Burdens of Proof, Clear & Convincing Proof, Nonobviousness, Elements & Tests, Substantial Evidence, Defenses, Patent Invalidity, Prior Art, Province of Court & Jury, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Claims & Specifications, Infringement Actions