Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP

• Decision Date: 16 August 2017
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 12–859
• Citation: 262 F.Supp.3d 118
• Parties: COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

262 F.Supp.3d 118

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12–859

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed August 16, 2017

Anthony I. Fenwick, David J. Lisson, Gareth E. Dewalt, Matthew B. Lehr, Shiwoong Kim, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Menlo Park, CA, Charles C. Carson, Jason F. Hoffman, Michael E. Anderson, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Ginger D. Anders, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Washington, DC, Edward Fu, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Long Island City, NY, Rebecca Santoro Melley, William T. Hangley, Michele D. Hangley, Andrew M. Erdlen, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Dale M. Heist, Daniel J. Goettle, Jeffrey W. Lesovitz, Stephanie Papastephanou, Baker & Hostetler LLP, John Frank Murphy, Woodcock Washburn LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Willy Chang, Baker

& Hostetler LLP, New York, NY, David Spencer Bloch, Winston & Strawn LLP, Peter A. Detre, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM

DuBois, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...124

II. RENEWED MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW...126

A. Standard of Review...126

B. Comcast's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law That Claim 113 of the '870 Patent is Not Obvious...127

1. Applicable Law...––––

2. Substantial Evidence that the Challenged Limitations Existed in the Prior Art...128

3. No Substantial Evidence of Motivation to Combine or Likelihood of Success...135

4. Conclusion...138

C. Comcast's Alternative Motion for a New Trial on Obviousness...139

D. Sprint's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Rule 50...139

1. Applicable Law...140

2. Discussion...140

III. COMCAST'S MOTIONS RELATING TO DAMAGES...142

A. Comcast's Motion for a New Trial on Damages...143

1. Standard of Review...143

2. Applicable Law...144

3. Sufficient Evidence to Sustain the Jury Verdict...144

4. Forward Citation Analysis...146

5. References to other Sprint patents and a 1999 Nokia Invention Report...147

6. Conclusion...148

B. Comcast's Motion to Amend Final Judgment to Add Pre- and Post–Judgment Interest...148

1. Pre–Judgment Interest...148

2. Post–Judgment Interest...150

3. Application of Pre- and Post–Judgment Interest...151

IV. CONCLUSION...152

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves claims of patent infringement between Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and Sprint Communications Company, LP. After withdrawal of several claims of infringement, only Comcast's claim for infringement of its U.S. Patent Number 6,885,870 ("the '870 patent") against Sprint and Sprint's Counterclaims for infringement of its U.S. Patents Numbers 6,754,907 and 6,757,907 ("the '907 patents") against Comcast remained in the case. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Comcast as to Sprint's counterclaims under the '907 patents by Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2016. See Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., LP (Comcast v. Sprint II ), 203 F.Supp.3d 499 (E.D. Pa. 2016). That Memorandum contains the factual background, procedural history, and details of the underlying patents in this case. For purposes of this Memorandum, the following summary of the invention will suffice, and additional facts will be incorporated as necessary.

The '870 patent, titled "Transferring of a Message," claims a method "for inquiring about information relating to a [wireless] terminal of a cellular network from the cellular network, from a messaging server external to the cellular network." '870 patent, at 2:45–48. The preferred embodiment of the invention can be summarized as follows:

1. A multimedia messaging service center ("MMSC") receives and stores a multimedia message ("MMS"). '870 patent, at 6:14–16. The MMS may contain pictures, text, or video, and is addressed to an RFC822 (i.e., e-mail) address, in the standard form name@domain. '870 patent, at 6:47–61. Alternatively, the message may be addressed to a phone number, which is then converted by the MMSC to a corresponding e-mail address. '870 patent, at 6:62–64. In the preferred embodiment, the MMSC is located outside the General Packet Radio Service ("GPRS") system of the Global System for Communications ("GSM."). '870 patent, at 6:65–66.

2. The MMSC maps the RFC822 address to a different address called an MMS–ID, which the patent describes as an identifier that is "external" to the cellular network. '870 patent, at 7:10–22.

3. The MMSC sends an inquiry into the GPRS to a server called the Gateway GPRS Support Node ("GGSN") "to determine the readiness of the wireless terminal to receive data." '870 patent, at 8:9–12.

4. The GGSN maps the MMS–ID to a corresponding international mobile subscriber identity ("IMSI") that is specific to a subscriber identity module ("SIM") card in the wireless terminal. '870 patent, at 8:22–25. The GGSN performs the mapping by "inquiring about the IMSI ... that corresponds to [the] MMS–ID from [a] database, in which the correspondences between the MMS–ID and the IMSI code of the wireless terminal are stored." '870 patent, at 8:25–29.

5. The GGSN uses the IMSI to search its database to determine if the wireless terminal is currently connected to it. '870 patent, at 8:31–35. If so, the GGSN (1) retrieves from the database the current dynamic network address of the wireless terminal, and (2) determines whether the wireless terminal is ready to receive the multimedia message. '870 patent, at 8:35–39. If the desired wireless terminal is not connected to the GGSN, the GGSN inquires of another GPRS element, the home location register ("HLR"), for the identity of the GGSN to which the wireless terminal is connected, if any, and requests the information from that GGSN. '870 patent, at 8:66–9:6, 9:47–51.

6. The ultimate result of the process, regardless of the result of step 5, is that the GGSN sends a response message to the MMSC consisting of the information retrieved regarding the wireless terminal—viz. the status of the wireless terminal including its dynamic network address and current GGSN—and preferably including the MMS–ID, the external identifier used in the request. '870 patent, at 10:14–28.

7. The MMSC then sends the message to the wireless terminal at its dynamically assigned network address through the cellular network in packet-switched mode. '870 patent, at 11:7–10.

Comcast v. Sprint II , 203 F.Supp.3d at 510–11.

Comcast asserted Claims 1, 7, and 113 of the '870 patent against Sprint. For purposes of the present Motions, only the limitations of Claim 113 are relevant. Claim 113 depends on Claim 112—i.e., Claim 113 incorporates by reference all of Claim 112's limitations, and adds additional restrictions. Claim 112, which was not asserted, claims:

A method for inquiring about information relating to a wireless terminal of a cellular network, from the cellular network by a messaging server external to the cellular network, wherein the method comprises:

[1] sending an inquiry from the messaging server to the cellular network to determine said information relating to the terminal, the inquiry comprising a first identifier identifying said terminal, the first identifier being a specific identifier external to the cellular network;

[2] mapping said first identifier to a specific second identifier in the cellular network, the second identifier being an internal identifier of the cellular network, wherein the mapping is not performed by a Home Location Register;

[3] determining said information relating to the terminal with the aid of said second identifier;

[4] sending a response message in response to said inquiry from the cellular network to said messaging server external to the cellular network, in which response message the information relating to said terminal is indicated with the aid of said first identifier.

Claim 113 adds the additional limitation that, in the third step, the determining is performed by the same network element to which the initial inquiry is sent in the first step.

A jury trial on Comcast's claims for infringement of Claims 1, 7, and 113 of the '870 patent began on January 30, 2017. Following a 14–day trial, on February 17, 2017, the jury returned a verdict, finding that Sprint had infringed all three asserted Claims of the '870 patent. The jury further found that Claims 1 and 7 of the '870 patent were valid as not anticipated and not obvious, and that Claim 113 was not anticipated, but that it was obvious and therefore invalid. The jury awarded Comcast a royalty of $1,500,000, in the form of a one-time lump sum for the life of the '870 patent, for infringement of Claims 1 and 7. The Court entered judgment on February 21, 2017.

Presently before the Court are Comcast's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law that Claim 113 of the '870 Patent is Not Obvious, Sprint's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Rule 50, Comcast's Motion for New Trial on Damages, and Comcast's Motion to Amend Final Judgment to Add Pre–Judgment Interest and Post–Judgment Interest. The Court disposes of the Motions as set forth below.

II. RENEWED MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

A. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) provides that after "a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial," a district court may grant judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") if "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). During trial, both Sprint and Comcast moved for JMOL under Rule 50(a), and the Court denied both Motions. See Trial Tr. (Feb. 14, 2017, afternoon) 193:21–200:19; Trial Tr. (Feb. 14, 2017, evening) 3:24–17:9.

"If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a)... the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). "To succeed on a renewed motion for JMOL following a jury trial and verdict, the movant ‘must show that the jury's findings, presumed or express, are not supported by...