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

The disputed patents relate to windshield wiper beam blade technology.  A jury found two claims of the ‘974 patent obvious, two claims from the ‘434 patent were obvious, but found three claims valid.  The jury found infringement for at least one claim of both patents.  Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL and new trial is conditionally granted with respect to obviousness of two claims of the ‘974 patent; two claims of the ‘434 patent and the derivation of one claim of the ‘974 patent.  The motion is denied as to other claims of these two patents.  Defendant’s motion for JMOL and or to amend judgment or for a new trial are denied.  Defendant’s motion for a permanent injunction is denied due to failure to define the relevant market and the existence of additional competitors.  The court finds that the jury’s obviousness verdict on two claims of the ‘974 patent and two claims of the ‘434 patent because it was not based on substantial evidence in that it was not supported by expert testimony (as a result of an in limine ruling).  The court found substantial support for the jury verdicts challenged by defendant and denies JMOL or new trial for defendant.