At trial, the Court granted Parallel’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on invalidity (the defendant, Microsoft Corp., had not presented the defense), and the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement. Jordan, sitting by designation, denied Parallel Networks LLC’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law of infringement and motion for a new trial. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.Judge Jordan Denies Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Although JMOL motions are often brought on short notice and under intense time pressure, the motion should name every ground upon which the jury could possibly find liability and point out why the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict. Practice Note: Kitchen-sink JMOL motions at the close of evidence remain the better practice. The Court specifically held that "the various unenforceability and invalidity defenses that may be raised by a defendant-inequitable conduct, the several forms of anticipation and loss of right under § 102, and obviousness under § 103-require different elements of proof." Each must be raised specifically in a post-evidence JMOL if it is to be preserved. While acknowledging that Duro-Last’s analysis might have prevailed under the law of some of the regional circuits, the Federal Circuit held that the sufficiency of a JMOL motion at the close of evidence to preserve the right to seek post-verdict JMOL on obviousness was a matter of Federal Circuit law, and, under that law, Duro-Last’s post-evidence motion was insufficient. According to Duro-Last, the question of whether the reference it was accused of concealing was material necessarily raised the underlying question of obviousness. To win review of the factual basis of the jury’s verdict by the district court, Duro-Last argued that its JMOL motion at the close of evidence on inequitable conduct had implicitly put in issue the question of obviousness. Patent and Trademark Office rendered the patent invalid for obviousness), Duro-Last sought JMOL (or what used to be called JNOV) that the patent was not obvious. When the jury later returned a verdict of invalidity under Section 103 (apparently on the basis that the art purportedly withheld from the U.S. At the close of evidence, Duro-Last moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL or what used to be called "directed verdict") under Rule 50 on Custom Seal’s defense of inequitable conduct. February 28, 2003).ĭuro-Last sued Custom Seal for infringement of its patent of roofing products used to cover roof protrusions such as vent pipes and air conditioning units. Patent and Trademark Office rendered the patented invention obvious. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of evidence on the issue of inequitable conduct was not sufficiently specific to preserve the right to seek review of the jury’s verdict that the art purportedly withheld from the U.S. Applying its own "nascent" law, and taking a more exacting view than the regional circuits might have done, the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
