Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | 15 Civ. 5024 (GBD) |
| Parties | OLAF SÖÖT DESIGN, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DAKTRONICS, INC. and Daktronics Hoist Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Gerald Eames Porter, Katherine Harihar, Phoenix Sung Pak, Puja Dave, Timothy Patrick Heaton, James M. Bollinger, Troutman Sanders LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Kenneth L. Bressler, Blank Rome LLP, Ryan Edward Cronin, New York, NY, Russell T. Wong, Domingo Manuel Llagostera, Munira Jesani, Pro Hac Vice, Blank Rome LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Olaf Sööt Design, LLC ("OST") brought this action against Defendants Daktronics, Inc. and Daktronics Hoist Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6, 520, 485 (the "'485 Patent") under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 190; Decl. of Kenneth L. Bressler in Supp. of Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. of Non-Infringement ("Bressler Decl."), Ex. 1 (The '485 Patent ), ECF No. 35-1.) The '485 Patent is for a stage scenery winch system that helps to move large sets quickly and efficiently. (the " '485 Patent Winch"). (Id. ) From December 10 to 18, 2018, Judge Robert W. Sweet presided over a jury trial in this action that resulted in a judgment against Defendants in the sum of $1,702,800.00. (J., ECF No. 327.)
Before this Court are five post-trial motions. Defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). (ECF Nos. 329, 346). Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), a motion to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and a motion for attorney's fees under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 285. (ECF Nos. 342, 338, 353.)
Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial are DENIED. Plaintiff's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for attorney's fees are DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment is GRANTED.
On February 18, 2003, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/690,116 matured into the '485 Patent and was assigned to Plaintiff. (Bressler Decl., Ex. 1 (The '485 Patent ).) The '485 Patent's Abstract provides a brief description of the '485 Patent Winch as follows:
A motorized fly system winch, drum and carriage combination for raising and lowering, for example, theatre scenery by means of cables and which incorporates functions for emergency braking, for moving the drum in synchronization with relation to the carriage containing cable-guiding means and for driving of a limit switch if desired. The winding and unwinding the cables on or off the drum does not change the cable runs relative to the theatre. The fly system winch can be installed at the sides of the stage, up at the stage gridiron, or above the gridiron. With this combination, counter-weights are unnecessary. The fly system winch is compact and can be economically manufactured.
(Id. at 57.) Defendants designed and built winches known as VORTEK Classic Hoists (the "Vortek") that are used by professional theaters, school auditoriums, places of worship, and other performance spaces. (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 13–14.)
Plaintiff commenced the instant action against Defendants for patent infringement on June 26, 2015. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff alleged that Defendants engaged in the "manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, promotion, and/or demonstration of winches [covered by one or more of the '485 Patent claims] including manufacture, marketing and/or sales in New York." (Id. ¶ 12.)
Defendants moved for summary judgment on April 29, 2016. (Defs.' Notice of Mot. & Mot. for Summ. J. of Non-Infringement, ECF No. 32.) On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff moved for claim construction on twelve terms appearing in the motion to reconsider his denial of summary judgment on May 17, 2017.
On October 26, 2017, Judge Sweet granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to include a claim of willful infringement under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271. (Op. dated Oct. 26, 2017, ECF No. 176.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2017. (Am. Compl.) Subsequently, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to establish that they did not willfully infringe the '485 Patent. (Defs.' Mot. for Partial Summ. J. of No Willful Infringement, ECF No. 200.) Judge Sweet granted Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on July 18, 2018 and denied Plaintiff's motion to reconsider on November 27, 2018. (J. re Part. Summ. J., ECF No. 258; Op. dated Nov. 27, 2018, ECF No. 292.)
On December 6, 2018, Judge Sweet granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine.1 (Op. re Mots.
In Limine , ECF No. 304.) Judge Sweet presided over an eight-day jury trial from December 10 to 18, 2018. (Trial Tr., ECF Nos. 315–326.) The jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff's favor and granted damages in the amount of $1,072,800. (Trial Tr. at 840:13–841:25.) The parties filed post-trial motions between January 7 and March 13, 2019. (Defs.' Notice of Renewed Mot. for J. as a Matter of Law ( ), ECF No. 329; Daktronics' Notice of Mot. for New Trial, or Alt, Remittitur ( ), ECF No. 346; Pl.'s Notice of Mot to Amend the J. ("Pl.'s Mot. to Amend J."), ECF No. 338; Pl.'s Renewed Mot. Pursuant to FRCP 50(b)
This case was reassigned to this Court on April 30, 2019 after Judge Sweet's passing. On July 9, 2019, this Court heard oral arguments on the parties' motions for judgment as a matter of law and on Defendants' motion for a new trial.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) permits a court to enter judgment against a party "[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue...." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), a party may renew a motion for judgment as a matter of law "[n]o later than 28 days after the entry of judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). When deciding a Rule 50(b) motion, a 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." Id.
However, a Rule 50(b) post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law "is limited to those grounds that are specifically raised in the prior motion for [JMOL]." Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat'l Realty & Dev. Corp. , 136 F.3d 276, 286 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Samuels v. Air Transport Local 504 , 992 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also AIG Global Sec. Lending Corp. v. Banc of Am. Sec, LLC , 386 F. App'x 5, 6 (2d Cir. 2010) ().
Therefore, when evaluating a Rule 50(b) motion, courts review "the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Rosioreanu v. City of N.Y. , 526 F. App'x 118, 119 (2d Cir. 2013). Further, when reviewing the evidence, a court may not "weigh evidence, assess credibility, or substitute its opinion of the facts for that of the jury." Advance Pharm., Inc. v. United States , 391 F.3d 377, 390 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Vt. Plastics, Inc. v. Brine, Inc. , 79 F.3d 272, 277 (2d Cir. 1996) ). Accordingly, judgment as a matter of law should only be granted where:
(1) there is such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or (2) there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fair minded [persons] could not arrive at a verdict against [it].
Id. (citing Galdieri-Ambrosini , 136 F.3d at 289 ).
The decision to grant a motion for a new trial, pursuant to Rule 59(a), rests within the "sound discretion of the district court." Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp. , 156 F.3d 136, 143 (2d Cir. 1998). Such a motion should not be granted unless the court "is convinced that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the verdict is a miscarriage of justice. " Kosmynka v. Polaris Industries, Inc. , 462 F.3d 74, 82 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also DLC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park , 163 F.3d 124, 134 (2d Cir. 1998) () (citing Dunlap-McCuller v. Riese Org. , 980 F.2d 153, 158 (2d Cir. 1992) ). "Unlike judgment as a matter of law, a new trial may be granted even if there is substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict." DLC Mgmt. Corp. , 163 F.3d at 134. The Court may independently weigh the evidence and, in doing so, the evidence need not be viewed "in the light most favorable to the verdict winner." Martin v. Moscowitz , 272 F. App'x 44, 47 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing DLC Mgmt. Corp. , 163 F.3d at 134 ).
A party may move to "alter or amend [the] judgment" under Rule 59(e) to add pre- and post-judgment interest. Fed. R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Airday v. City of N.Y.
-
Olaf Soot Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc., 2020-1009
...h either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court denied this motion. See Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc., 406 F. Supp. 3d 328, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ("Decision Denying JMOL"). Daktronics appealed the final judgment of infringement and several additional ru......