New trial on damages, written description, and obviousness is warranted
LG Electronics U.S.A., et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al., C. A. No. 08-234-GMS, July 1, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Post-trial motions granted in part and denied in part.
This is a patent infringement case involving refrigerator technology. On April 28, 2008, plaintiffs initiated the case. Defendants counterclaimed in their answer with their own patents. A nine-day jury trial was held March 1 to March 11, 2010. The parties moved for judgment as a matter of law on a number of grounds, which were denied. On March 11, the jury returned its verdict and judgment was entered April 9, 2010. The parties thereafter filed post-trial motions: (1) plaintiff’s renewed motion for JMOL or for a new trial, (2) Defendants’ renewed motion for JMOL or for a new trial, (3) Defendants’ motion for a permanent injunction, (4) Defendants’ motion for an award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, (5) Defendants’ motion to deny and dismiss plaintiffs’ bench trial issues, and (6) Defendants’ motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The parties’ post-trial motions were denied, except defendants’ motions were granted as to its (1) motion for JMOL regarding anticipation of one its patent claims, (2) motion for infringement of one of its patents and for new trial on damages, (3) request for accounting, and (4) motion for prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and except plaintiffs’ motions were granted as to its (1) request for a new trial regarding the sufficiency of the written description of one of defendants’ patents and (2) request for a new trial regarding obviousness of one of defendants’ claims.
