Stay of injunction pending appeal is denied
Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, Civ. No. 06-091-SLR, November 10, 2008.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s post-trial motion for JMOL or a new trial following jury verdict on validity is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is granted by separate order and stay of that order pending appeal is denied.
The patents-in-suit relate to golf ball technology. Prior to trial, defendant stipulated that its golf balls infringe certain claims of the ‘293 ‘156, ‘130 and ‘873 patents. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor on validity with the exception of one claim of the ‘293 patent. JMOL and new trial motions followed; as well as plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction and defendant’ s motion to stay any permanent injunction issued by the Court pending appeal. On defendant’s JMOL motion, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of nonobviousness. Defendant’s argument that a new trial is warranted because the jury’s findings on validity are inconsistent is rejected. Inconsistency alone is insufficient to warrant a new trial absent an effect on defendant’s substantial rights, and given the likelihood that the Federal Circuit may reverse or remand any of the underpinnings upon which trial in this matter proceeded, the Court declines to order a new trial without more compelling circumstances. The Court finds that plaintiff has made a sufficient showing on each of the four traditional factors and will grant the injunction by separate order. In light of the significant public interest concerns (that an injunction would disturb many golfers loyal to the infringing brand, including professional, who have about two months left on their 2008 contract), the Court adopts plaintiff’s proposal allowing professional golfers to play the infringing brand through the end of the 2008 calendar year. Defendant’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal is unfounded and is therefore denied.
