Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp. - 990 F. Supp. 2d 882 (W.D. Wis. 2013)

Rule:

When reviewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law in patent cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), the court applies the law of the regional circuit. The facts are construed strictly in favor of the party that prevailed at trial while disregarding all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. The court is not to make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, and it must determine whether more than a mere scintilla of evidence supports the verdict. In other words, the court's job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of the evidence supports the jury's verdict or if, instead, the jury was irrational to reach its conclusion.

Facts:

Following a six-day trial in this patent infringement lawsuit over optical disc technology, the jury found that defendants Imation Corp., Moser Baer India Ltd., Ritek Corp. and CMC Magnetics Corp., induced infringement of Claim 1 of the '966 patent and Claims 1, 2 and 4 of the '751 patent. The jury found in favor of all defendants on plaintiff Toshiba Corporation's claim that they directly infringed Claim 1 of the '966 patent and in favor of plaintiff on defendants' counterclaim that the '966 patent was invalid as anticipated by prior art. Thereafter, the parties filed and briefed these post-trial motions. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Rule 50(b) regarding direct infringement. Defendants' motion for JMOL under Rule 50(b) that Claim 1 of the '966 patent was invalid as anticipated, and alternative motion for new trial under Rule 59. Defendants' motion for JMOL under Rule 50(b) that plaintiff failed to comply with the marking statute, and alternative motion for new trial under Rule 59. Defendants' motion for JMOL under Rule 50(b) regarding induced infringement of both the '751 and '966 patents, and alternative motion for new trial under Rule 59, and defendants' motion under Rule 60(b) for reconsideration of this court's ruling precluding defendants from pursuing an exhaustion defense. 

Issue:

Should the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) regarding direct infringement be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court denied in part and granted in part the post-trial motions. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) regarding direct infringement. As defendants point out, the DVD standard to which the parties’ expert referred states that "the data to be stored, called the Main data, was formatted in a number of steps before being recorded on the disc" and that a "Data frame consists of Main data, Identification Data (ID) and others." As a result, the jury did not need to construe the term data to mean user data in order to find for defendants. In viewing the evidence in favor of defendants, the court concluded that more than a mere scintilla of evidence supports the jury's verdict.