Jury verdict against ATMI stands and court denies JMOL and new trial application
Praxair, Inc. et al. v. ATMI, Inc. et al., No. 03-1158-SLR, Aug. 17, 2006
Robinson, J. Motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial, is denied. Defendant’s argument that no reasonable jury could have found that defendant’s products infringe was rejected. Expert’s unrebutted yet conclusory testimony failed to persuade the jury and does not meet the necessary clear and convincing standard. New trial unwarranted since excluded evidence resulted from trial by ambush tactics.
The technology at issue involves an apparatus for controlling the discharge of pressurized fluids from the outlet of pressurized tanks. The jury found that defendants infringed all asserted claims and that the patents were not invalid on December 7, 2005.
The Court found sufficient evidence to support jury’s finding of infringement, and declined the invitation to reassess claim construction. The defendants failed to make a prima facie case of reverse doctrine of equivalents.
Defendant’s expert testified that because there was no material difference between the accused filter and the filter in prior art, if the accused filter infringes, the prior art anticipates. The jury found the testimony unpersuasive and defendant failed to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
A new trial was not warranted because Defendant's trial by ambush tactics led to exclusion of evidence. Nearly one year of fact discovery was extended one month to allow defendants’ new counsel to get up to speed, but only to resolve open discovery issues. On the last day, defendants identified 50 new prior art references. Expert opinions were properly excluded when they were first disclosed in a supplemental report on the morning of the expert’s deposition and a month after discovery closed. Plaintiff thus had no opportunity to conduct rebuttal discovery. Extending discovery and rescheduling trial would have prejudiced plaintiff. The court found that the probative value of evidence comparing pre-patent product designs with the accused device was outweighed by the prejudice. Defendant waived the right to have the court consider evidence relating to the reverse doctrine of equivalents by not identifying its relevance to the doctrine at trial. Defendant was furthermore not permitted to provide evidence of inaccurate test data for the first time on cross-examination.
