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

Plaintiff and defendant are both in the business of developing software and own patents pertaining to on-line internet-based transaction infrastructures.  Following a jury verdict for the defense, plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial on several grounds.  The Court finds that the jury in this case faced conflicting expert testimony and was entitled to resolve the issue of infringement in favor of defendant and denies plaintiff’s renewed motions for JMOL that defendant infringes the patents-in-suit.  With respect to invalidity of the ‘710 patent, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to preserve its right to move for JMOL on the ground that no there is no written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. §112, paragraph 1.  However, the Court agrees with plaintiff that defendant presented insufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that defendant met its burden that the ‘710 patent lacked adequate written description.  Therefore plaintiff is entitled to JMOL that the ‘710 patent is not invalid for lack of written description.  The Court finds that defendant’s expert’s testimony is insufficient to support a jury’s finding of anticipation.  Thus plaintiff is entitled to JMOL on this issue. Because defendant presented no evidence that it conceived of that system prior to the ‘710 patent’s effective filing date, plaintiff is entitled to JMOL on this issue as well.
Plaintiff’s requests for a new trial on several aspects of invalidity are moot.  Finally, plaintiff’s request for a new trial on the ground that the jury applied an incorrect claim construction for the term “feedback information” is denied for failure to show that it was prejudiced.