Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 October 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action 1:11-cv-4574
• Parties: Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendant.

Civil Action 1:11-cv-4574

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

October 19, 2015

The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly

SAMSUNG'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT CLAIMS 1 AND 15 OF THE '750 PATENT ARE INVALID AND CONDITIONAL MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF INVALIDITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law .................................................................................. 2

B. Anticipation ............................................................................................................. 2

C. Obviousness ............................................................................................................ 3

III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law Should be Entered That the Asserted Claims are Invalid ............................................................................................................... 3

1. The Le '514 Patent Discloses Every Limitation of Claims 1 and 15 of the '750 Patent ........................................................................................ 4

2. Cascades Offered No Evidence to Rebut Dr. Medvidovic's Analysis ....................................................................................................... 5

3. The Claims of the '750 Patent Were Obvious in Light of the Disclosures in the '514 Patent ..................................................................... 9

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Int'l. Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................... 5

Black & Decker Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 476 F. Supp. 2d 887 (N.D. Ill. 2007) .......................................................................................... 2

Erickson v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 469 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2006) ....................................................................................................... 2

Honaker v. Smith, 256 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................... 2

In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 3, 5

InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc'ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 3

Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co, 667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 2, 6

KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................................................... 3

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 2

Meds. Co. v. Mylan Inc., 72 F. Supp. 3d 837 (N.D. Ill. 2014) ............................................................................................ 3

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) .................................................................................................................... 2

Zelinski v. Brunswick Corp., 185 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... 6

Statutes

35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................................... 2, 3

I. INTRODUCTION

Cascades asserted claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,065,750 ("the '750 patent") against Samsung in this case. See Dkt. 419 (Jury Instructions) at 17. At trial, Samsung challenged the validity of the asserted claims of the '750 patent as both anticipated and rendered obvious by the prior art. See id. at 22. At the close of evidence, Samsung moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) on a number of grounds, including that claims 1 and 15 of the '750 patent are invalid as anticipated and obvious . (See Ex. 1, Trial Tr. at 1071:22-23; Dkt. 417). The Court took these motions under advisement and submitted the case to the jury. (Ex. 1, Trial Tr. at 1071:24). The jury found that Samsung proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it did not directly or indirectly infringe the asserted claims, but also that Samsung had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims of the '750 patent were invalid. (See id. at 1150:3-20). The Court entered judgment on September 21, 2015 in Samsung's favor. Dkt. 421.

Pursuant to Rule 50(b), Samsung renews its motion for JMOL that claims 1 and 15 of the '750 patent are invalid as anticipated or rendered obvious by U.S. Patent No. 6,631,514 ["the Le '514 patent"]. As a matter of law based on the evidence presented at trial, the '750 patent is invalid.

Cascades put up no more than a facial case to rebut Samsung's detailed explanation of invalidity. It is undisputed that nearly every element of the asserted claims can be found in the prior art Le '514 patent. The only dispute raised by Cascades was through purely conclusory testimony that failed to even reference the prior art exhibit or point to specific language contained within, and so should be disregarded as a matter of law. Given Samsung's overwhelming evidence demonstrating how each and every element of the asserted claims wasdisclosed in, and/or rendered obvious by, the Le '514 patent, and Cascades' failure to put forth a validity case, no reasonable juror could have found the '750 patent not invalid.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law

"The law of the Seventh Circuit controls the standard for motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 because they involve procedural issues not unique to patent law." Black & Decker Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 476 F. Supp. 2d 887, 891 (N.D. Ill. 2007). JMOL is appropriate when no reasonable jury could have found in favor of the non-movant. Erickson v. Wis. Dept. of Corr., 469 F.3d 600, 601 (7th Cir. 2006).

"[A] court should render judgment as a matter of law 'when a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the party on that issue.'" Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149 (2000). The Court must "judge whether the evidence in support of the verdict is substantial; the party opposing the motion must have put forward more than a 'mere scintilla' of evidence to support that jury verdict." Honaker v. Smith, 256 F.3d 477, 484 (7th Cir. 2001). "If, after reviewing all of the evidence in the case, the nonmoving party did not introduce enough evidence to support his claim, then judgment as a matter of law is appropriate." Id.

B. Anticipation

Samsung bears the burden of proof as to invalidity; however, judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if no reasonable jury could fail to find the patents invalid. See, e.g., Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reversing denial of JMOL of anticipation). A patent claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if a prior art publication discloses every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The reference neednot use the exact words of the claims to disclose each limitation. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

C. Obviousness

"Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual findings: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective considerations of nonobviousness." Meds. Co. v. Mylan Inc., 72 F. Supp. 3d 837, 855 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc'ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). A directed verdict is appropriate where "the content of the prior art, the scope of the patent claim, and the level of ordinary skill in the art are not in material dispute, and the obviousness of the claim is apparent in light of these factors..." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 427 (2007) (granting summary judgment of obviousness).

III. ARGUMENT

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law Should be Entered That the Asserted Claims are Invalid

At trial, Samsung presented clear, convincing, and unrebutted evidence that the asserted claims of the '750 patent are anticipated by the Le '514 patent.

The Le '514 patent was filed by Bich-Cau Le on January 6, 1998, over a year before the '750 patent's claimed priority date of February 17, 1999. It is undisputed that the Le '514 patent is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. (Ex. 1, Trial Tr. at 1086:12-17).

As Dr. Medvidovic explained at trial, the Le '514 patent discloses "a binary translation system that would allow [a programmer] to run code written for one architecture after translating it to run it on another architecture." (Id. at 953:19-22 (Medvidovic Direct)). Like the '750 patent, the Le '514 patent sought to translate code originally written for the Intel architecture torun on a different architecture. The Le '514 patent's exemplary...