`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:13-cv-447-JRG
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`ORDER
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC, et al.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Before the Court is the Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Issue of
`
`§ 101 under Rule 50(b) (Dkt. No. 550) filed by the Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Plaintiff
`
`Smartflash LLC, et al. (“Smartflash”) responds in an omnibus response (Dkt. No. 555). On July
`
`1, 2015, the Court held a hearing regarding all post-trial issues. The Court previously addressed
`
`the issue of willfulness (Dkt. No. 580) and the issue of damages (Dkt. No. 581). For the reasons
`
`set forth below, the Court declines to revise its Rule 56 summary judgment order on the issue
`
`of § 101.
`
`I.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`On January 21, 2015, Magistrate Judge Nicole Mitchell issued a substantial Report and
`
`Recommendation denying Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`(Dkt. No. 423). On February 13, 2015, after hearing the parties’ objections, the Court adopted
`
`the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 484). After trial was complete and a verdict had
`
`been returned, Apple field a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 50(b) seeking to reopen the § 101 issue.
`
`Smartflash - Exhibit 2075
`Google v. Smartflash
`CBM2015-00132
`
`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00447-JRG Document 585 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 31019
`
`The Court, exercising its discretion, declines to revise or revisit its Rule 56 Order. See
`
`F.D.I.C. v. Massingill, 24 F.3d 768, 774 (5th Cir.) (noting that the decision to revisit a Rule 56(d)
`
`Order is within the discretion of the district court) opinion supplemented on denial of reh'g, 30
`
`F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 1994). The § 101 issue has already received full and fair treatment. To allow
`
`parties, in post-trial motions, to entirely reargue the merits of issues that have already been fully
`
`addressed during the case would potentially throw open the flood gates to repetitive post-trial
`
`motions. This Court has concerns about materially increasing the burden of post-trial motion
`
`practice on the parties and the Court, should this procedure be welcomed and made
`
`routine. Applying regional circuit law (cited above) to this procedural issue, the Court
`
`exercises its discretion, for the reasons noted above, and accordingly declines to reconsider the §
`
`101 issue in the context of a post-trial JMOL when the same as been heard and fully addressed
`
`pre-trial, as it has here under Rule 56.
`
`2