$34 million verdict survives post trial challenge
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF, November 7, 2008.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial regarding invalidity of the patent-in-suit is denied.
Following a $34 million jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on infringement, willful infringement, damages, and validity, the Court concluded the defendants failed to prove the patents were unenforceable. Defendants moved for JMOL and a new trial. Defendants’ argument that plaintiff did not offer sufficient evidence to establish that the claimed inventor of the ‘075 conceived of and reduced to practice the invention claimed by the ‘075 patent before the filing date of the ‘173 patent was rejected. Defendants also contend that they are entitled to JMOL that the ‘075 patent is anticipated Citing to Z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., the Court notes that where priority of invention is in dispute, the Federal Circuit has interpreted Section 102(g) to provide that priority of invention goes to the first party to reduce an invention to practice unless the other party can show that it was the first to conceive the invention and that it exercised reasonable diligence in later reducing that invention to practice. The Court, however, cannot conclude that defendants have established by clear and convincing evidence that the inventor of the ‘173 patent first conceived of the invention claimed in the ‘075 patent. The Court also finds that defendants’ obviousness argument must fail. As for defendants’ motion for a new trial, the Court rejects defendants’ argument that they were prejudiced by plaintiff’s advancement of two theories at trial that were not previously disclosed. T he Court holds that plaintiff had sufficient notice. Defendants also contend that the Court’s jury instruction on “corroboration” of invention was erroneous as a matter of law. Acknowledging that the instruction may have been too narrowly worded, the Court concludes that any error was harmless viewing the instructions as a whole and given the great weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds that a new trial is not warranted.
