Court upholds noninfringement verdict, grants JMOL as to invalidity
Inline Connection Corporation, et al. v. Earthlink, Inc., C. A. No.02-272-MPT; C.A. No. 02-477-MPT, February 5, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to invalidity is granted but is denied as to noninfringement. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is also denied.
The technology in this case involves a system of transmitting high frequency data signals and lower frequency voice band signals over conventional telephone wiring. The jury found that each of the asserted claims was invalid as anticipated and obvious and that each of the patents failed to comply with the written description and enablement requirements of §112. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant used its patented system, without permission, to make DSL products more attractive to consumers. The three patents-in-suit are directed toward transmitting data signals of different frequencies over conventional telephone wiring. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on invalidity. However, the Court finds for the defense on infringement. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of noninfringement must be denied for at least two reasons: (1) the record allowed the jury to determine that Plaintiff had not carried its burden with respect to infringement; and (2) the jury could have determined that the evidence showed that the telephones (a required element of every asserted claim) are not part of the accused system. The Court finds that a reasonable jury could have determined that Plaintiff’s expert on infringement was impeached during his testimony and, therefore, lacked credibility. In addition, Plaintiff did not establish that Defendant infringed the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The Court finds that the claims of the patented invention require one or more telephones. Because Defendant insists that the accused system neither requires nor uses telephones in any way, it does not “use” the patented invention. The Court agrees that, since at least one “telephone device” is an element of each of the asserted claims, the absence of evidence that Defendant’s system includes that element is substantial evidence upon which the jury could have returned its noninfringement verdict. Based on the Court’s findings of noninfringment, Plaintiff’s request for a new trial is denied.
