01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 March 2017
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 1:06-cv-253
• Parties: 01 COMMUNIQUE LABORATORY, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., et al., DEFENDANTS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

01 COMMUNIQUE LABORATORY, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., et al., DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-253

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

March 21, 2017

JUDGE SARA LIOI

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the combined motion of plaintiff 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. ("plaintiff" or "01" or "Communique") for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial (Doc. No. 580 ["Mot."]. Defendants Citrix Systems, Inc. and Citrix Online, LLC (collectively "defendants" or "Citrix") opposed the motion (Doc. No. 586 ["Opp'n"]), to which 01 replied (Doc. No. 589 ["Reply"]).

For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural background of this case has been extensively detailed in the Court's claims construction and summary judgment opinions. (See Doc. Nos. 343 ["Clm. Const. MOO"] and 471 ["SJ MOO"], respectively.) For purposes of context, a brief background summary is provided now, with greater detail provided later in this memorandum opinion as relevant to the Court's analysis.

In this patent infringement action, plaintiff alleges that Citrix's product, GoToMyPC, infringes independent claim 24, and dependent claim 45, of 01's U.S. Patent No. 6,928,479 (the "'479 patent"). The claimed invention allows individuals to remotely access a personal computer from any device with an internet connection. The primary infringement issue in this case revolves around the manner in which that remote access occurs.

The meaning of certain terms in claims 24 and 45 of the '479 patent are disputed by the parties. Therefore, the Court was required to construe the disputed terms before plaintiff's infringement allegations could be addressed. After briefing and oral argument, the Court issued an opinion construing the disputed claim terms. (See Clm. Const. MOO.)

Thereafter, multiple summary judgment motions were filed. Among other issues, 01 moved for judgment on its direct infringement claim, and Citrix moved for judgment on plaintiff's claims for willful infringement and induced infringement. (See SJ MOO at 19086-87.¹) The parties also filed cross motions for summary judgment as to whether the asserted claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Id.) In ruling on the summary judgment motions, the Court: (1) granted 01's motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the '479 patent are eligible under § 101 and denied Citrix's motion that the claims are ineligible under § 101; (2) denied 01's motion for summary judgment as to direct infringement of the asserted claims and for exclusion of all evidence of prior art; (3) granted Citrix's motion for summary judgment on 01's claim for induced infringement; and (4)denied Citrix's motion forsummary judgment on plaintiff's claim for willful infringement and injunctive relief. (Id. at 19141.)

The jury trial in this case commenced on January 11, 2016. During the trial, both 01 and Citirx moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). (Doc. Nos. 551 and 549, respectively; Doc. No. 552 (Transcript January 15, 2016 ["1/15/16 Tr."]) at 38062-38115). At the close of evidence in the case, but before the case was submitted to the jury, both sides reasserted their Rule 50(a) motions and the Court deferred a ruling. (Id. at 38223.)

On January 19, 2016, the jury rendered a split verdict. (Doc. No. 570 ["Verdict"].) First, the jury found in favor of Citrix that GoToMyPC did not infringe claims 24 and 45 of the '479 patent. (Id. at 41191.) Next, the jury found in favor of 01 that neither claim 24 nor 45 of the '479 patent are invalid. (Id. at 41192-93.)

When the jury was excused, neither side orally renewed their Rule 50(a) motions. (See Doc. No. 569 (Transcript January 19, 2016 ["1/19/16 Tr."]) at 41189.) After the Judgment Entry was filed (Doc. No. 576), 01 filed the present combined motion pursuant to Rules 50 and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Citrix did not file a post-trial motion. The law of the Sixth Circuit, rather than the Federal Circuit, applies to the Court's analysis of 01's Rule 50 and Rule 59 motion. Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 485 F. Supp. 2d 805, 810 n.2 (E.D. Mich. 2007) ("Because Rule 50 and a motion for judgment as a matter of law raises a procedural issue that is not unique to patent law, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applies the law of the 'regional circuit in which the appeal from the district court would usually lie.'") (quoting Summit Tech. Inc. v. Nidek Co., 363 F.3d 1219, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

II. 01's RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50

Rule 50(b) provides that:

***

(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial. If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment--or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged--the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:

(1)allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;

(2)order a new trial; or

(3)direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

***

"The inquiry for resolving a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 is the same as the inquiry for resolving a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56." White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 2004), aff'd sub nom. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 165 L. Ed. 2d 345 (2006) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2000)). The Court must "review all of the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether there was a genuine issue of material fact for the jury." Id. (citing Gray v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods., Inc., 263 F.3d 595, 598 (6th Cir. 2001)); Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 414 (6th Cir. 2012), aff'd, 134 S. Ct. 1377, 188 L. Ed. 2d 392 (2014) ("A renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law following an adverse jury verdict 'may only be granted if, whenviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences . . . reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion in favor of the moving party.'") (quoting Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1003, 126 S. Ct. 624, 163 L. Ed. 2d 506 (2005)).

It is only appropriate to grant a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law where the Court finds that there is no "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" for a reasonable jury to find for the prevailing party on that issue. White, 364 F.3d at 794; Static Control Components, 697 F.3d at 414. In making this determination, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the prevailing party. White, 364 F.3d at 794 (citing Reeves, 530 U.S. at 133). The Court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, and "must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe." Id.; Static Control Components, 697 F.3d at 414 ("We will not substitute our interpretation of the evidence for the jury's, even if we would have reached a different conclusion.") (citing Barnes, 401 F.3d at 738).

B. Discussion

In its post-trial motion, 01 seeks judgment as a matter of law with respect to its claim that GoToMyPC infringes claims 24 and 45 of the '479 patent. A party must move for judgment as a matter of law on an issue at the close of all the evidence in order to preserve the right to renew its motion on that issue after the jury returns its verdict. Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Bolt, 106 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); Carter v. Ricumstrict, 637 F. App'x 917, 919 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 340, 196 L. Ed. 2d 267 (2016) (citing, among authority, Am. & Foreign Ins. Co., 106 F.3d at 160).

As a threshold matter, Citrix argues that 01's post-trial motion must be denied because 01 did not seek judgment as a matter of law for infringement under Rule 50(a) and, therefore, 01 waived and forfeited its right to now seek judgment as to infringement after the jury returned its verdict. (Opp'n at 41433-34.) 01 contends that it preserved its right to seek post-trial judgment on the issue of infringement by incorporating its motion for summary judgment and motions in limine into its Rule 50 arguments. (Reply at 41481-84.)

01 incorporated its summary judgment motion into the oral argument on its Rule 50 motion regarding invalidity as follows:

And it's also clear that the reason that [Citrix's expert] has to take this position as we pointed out in our motion for summary judgment, which I incorporate by reference, is that Dr. Foster² relied on a claim construction different from that offered by the Court to reach his invalidity conclusions. And I believe even the defendant realizes you can't assert an invalidity ground based on claim construction language that the Court has rejected. So we would argue that the invalidity of the matter should not go to the jury.

(1/15/16 Tr. at 38087 (footnote added).) 01 also incorporated former motions by reference at the close of oral argument on its Rule 50 motion as to invalidity: "Once again, Your Honor, we incorporate our motions for summary judgment and motions in limine into this argument." (Id. at 38096.)

01's generic...