`
`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
`CBM2015-00143
`
`
`
`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
