Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility, LLC., C.A. No. 11-908- SLR, October 28, 2014.
Robinson, J. Renewed JMOL motion on invalidity and non-infringement after a hung jury verdict is granted in part and denied in part. A nine-day jury trial took place from January 24 to February 4, 2014.
The disputed technology reflected in the six patents-in-suit relates to information processing, computing and mobile phones, portable processor devices, computer-implemented methods of distributing software, and products for transferring data over a network. The court denies defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to invalidity of the ’462 patent, concluding that a jury could properly credit the testimony of plaintiff’s expert above over that of defendant’s expert. The court further denies judgment as a matter of law with respect to the invalidity of claims 16 and 17 of the ’464 patent, concluding that a reasonable jury could properly find a lack of motivation to combine disputed prior art references. In addition, the court denies defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to invalidity and non-infringement of the ’054 patent. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to credit plaintiff’s expert’s testimony. Finally, the court grants defendant’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law with respect to invalidity of claims 1 and 8 of the ’464 patent where no substantive rebuttal evidence was provided.