Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

In considering the motion, the Court looks to whether a reasonable jury could have found for the prevailing party.  Noting the distinction between this case and Rohm & Hass Co. v. Biotech Corp., the Court concludes that because this case was tried to a jury, the Court is in the procedural posture of reviewing the jury’s verdict post-trial, rather than weighing and assessing the evidence itself as the fact-finder as it did in Rohm.  Defendant contends that plaintiff failed to establish that the accused products met a preamble limitation.  In this context, the Court, while believing this case to present a close question, cannot conclude that plaintiff failed to put forth the minimum quantum of evidence required to support the jury’s verdict of infringement and/or invalidity.  As for defendants’ argument regarding error in the jury instructions, the Court notes that such a motion is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge such an error and, in any event, the instructions do not misstate the law on obviousness, absent further guidance from the Federal Circuit in the wake of KSR v. Teleflex.