Case 2:07-cv-00271-RSP Document 314 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 19119
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§§
`
`§ CASE NO. 2:07-CV-271
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`V.
`
`MENUSOFT SYSTEMS CORP., ET AL
`
`Pending before the court are Plaintiff’s Rule 50(b) motions for judgment as a matter of law
`
`(“JMOL”) of no anticipation, nonobviousness, and no invalidity based on expert testimony that was
`
`inconsistent with the court’s claim construction (Dkt. Nos. 280, 281, and 282).1
`
`A motion for JMOL is a procedural issue not unique to patent law; thus, such motions are
`
`reviewed under the law of the regional circuit. Summit Tech., Inc. v. Nidek Co., 363 F.3d 1219, 1223
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). In the Fifth Circuit, JMOL may only be granted if “there is no legally sufficient
`
`evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as the jury did.” Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695, 700
`
`(5th Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)(1) (stating that JMOL may
`
`be granted only if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
`
`evidentiary basis to find for the party on [an] issue.”). In ruling on a motion for JMOL, the court
`
`reviews all the evidence in the record and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`
`nonmoving party. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000).
`
`The court, however, may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, as those are
`
`solely functions of the jury. Id. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b), in ruling on a renewed motion for
`
`JMOL, the court may allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict, order a new trial,
`
`1Plaintiff moved for JMOL pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a) on these issues at the close
`of Defendants’ case in chief (Dkt. No. 273 at 151-58). The court carried Plaintiff’s motions.
`Plaintiff thereafter reasserted its JMOL motions under FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b).
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1059, Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00271-RSP Document 314 Filed 05/26/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 19120
`
`or direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.
`
`With regard to Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of no anticipation, a patent claim is invalid by
`
`reason of anticipation if “the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or
`
`described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the
`
`applicant for patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Anticipation under § 102(a) requires the presence in the
`
`prior art of each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Amgen Inc. v. F-Hoffman-La Roche
`
`Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212
`
`F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Having carefully considered the record, and the parties’
`
`arguments, the court concludes that the jury had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for finding the
`
`asserted claims of the patents-in-suit invalid due to anticipation. Accordingly, the court DENIES
`
`Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of no anticipation (Dkt. No. 280).
`
`Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of nonobviousness is likewise DENIED (Dkt. No. 281). A
`
`patent is invalid for obviousness “if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of
`
`fact. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “An analysis of obviousness must be based
`
`on several factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between
`
`the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if any.” Id.; see also Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). The teachings of a prior art reference are underlying factual
`
`questions in the obviousness inquiry. Id. Applying this legal standard to the record in this case, the
`
`2
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1059, Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-00271-RSP Document 314 Filed 05/26/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 19121
`
`court concludes that the jury had a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for finding the asserted claims
`
`of the patents-in-suit invalid due to obviousness.
`
`Finally, the court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of no invalidity (Dkt. No. 282).
`
`Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ expert, Dr. Acampora, testified inconsistently with the court’s
`
`claim construction, and thus, Dr. Acampora’s testimony cannot provide substantial evidence of
`
`invalidity to support the jury’s verdict. The court, however, rejects this argument. The court has
`
`reviewed Dr. Acampora’s testimony and is not persuaded that it was contrary to the court’s claim
`
`construction. In any event, the court has reviewed the evidence in light of the court’s jury
`
`instructions regarding infringement and invalidity and is persuaded that the evidence supports the
`
`jury’s verdict.
`
`In conclusion, the evidence presented in this case was legally sufficient to support the jury’s
`
`finding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness.
`
`Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s JMOL motions.
`
`3
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1059, Page 3
`
`