Defendant's obvious and new trial motions are denied
Linear Technology Corporation v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 06-476-GMS, November 12, 2009.
Sleet, C.J. The Court denies defendant’s post-trial motions that the patents-in-suit are obvious, or alternatively for a new trial.
The patents-in-suit relate to a high efficiency switching regulator. A jury trial was held from June 23, 2008 to July 1, 2008. At no time before the jury verdict did defendant move for JMOL. The jury found plaintiff proved infringement and defendant failed to prove obviousness. The court found that the failure to move for JMOL was fatal to its motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness. The court further found that the jury’s verdict of non-obviousness was not remotely against the clear weight of the evidence and declined to order a new trial. The court further rejects the argument that fraudulent testimony requires a new trial. The testimony was found to be consistent with the facts, and defendant’s failure to clarify the contested testimony can not now be the basis for a new trial.
