Eagleview Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1:15-cv-07025 |
| Citation | 485 F.Supp.3d 505 |
| Parties | EAGLEVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. XACTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, By: Liza M. Walsh, Esq., Hector D. Ruiz, Esq., Eleonore Ofosu-Antwi, Esq., Three Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor, Newark, New Jersey 07102, and KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, By: Adam R. Alper, Esq., Brandon H. Brown, Esq., Reza Dokhanchy, Esq., 555 California Street, San Francisco, California 94104, Michael W. DeVries, Esq., 333 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California 90071, Patricia Carson, Esq., Leslie M. Schmidt, Esq., 601 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10022, Gianni Cutri, Esq., Kristina Hendricks, Esq., Joel R. Merkin, Esq., 300 North LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois 60654, Counsel for Plaintiff.
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, By: Scott S. Christie, Esq., Matthew A. Sklar, Esq., Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, Lee Carl Bromberg, Esq., Thomas R. Fulford, Esq., 265 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, and GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, By: Mark A. Perry, Esq., 1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20036, Counsel for Defendants.
It is a great irony that the Defendants, Xactware Solutions, Inc., ("Xactware") and Verisk Analytics, Inc. ("Verisk") (collectively the "Defendants"), have described this litigation as a "journey through the looking glass" where the parties and this Court "ended up deep within some unreal wonderland where up is down, left is right." (Opposition Brief, Dkt. 874, at 6). It is so true. At times this Court felt like Alice. The Court strove to make sense of the farrago of shifting defenses, arguments transforming into new, but likewise unpersuasive ones. The Court worried also that the jury, too, might fall down the rabbit hole. In the end, however, the jury made sense of it all.
After twelve days of trial, the jury found that Defendants willfully infringed five of Plaintiff EagleView's patents, and that Defendants had failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that EagleView's patents were invalid. The jury awarded EagleView $125 million in lost profits damages.
Defendants now move for a new trial1 , attacking every aspect of the jury's verdict, as well as an alleged "cascading series of errors" by the Court. (Moving Brief, Dkt. No. 864, at 1). For the reasons stated herein, the Motion will be denied, and the Court will "allow judgment on the verdict" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)(1). Unlike the jury in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland , this jury - who sat through ten days of testimony, heard from numerous fact and expert witnesses, and considered thousands of exhibits - saw through the confusion and illusion, and held right is right.
Plaintiff EagleView Technologies, Inc. ("EagleView" or "Plaintiff") is the owner of various patents directed to software for rooftop aerial measurements used to prepare roof repair estimates. In relevant part, EagleView is the owner of five patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,078,436 (" ‘436 Patent") entitled "Aerial Roof, Estimation Systems and Methods," U.S. Patent 8,170,840 (" ‘840 Patent") entitled "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation", U.S. Patent 8, 818,770 (" ‘770 Patent") entitled "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimates," U.S. Patent No. 8, 825,454 (" ‘454 Patent") entitled "Concurrent Display Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation," and U.S. Patent 9,129,376 (" ‘376 Patent") entitled "Pitch Determination Systems and Methods for Aerial Roof Estimation" (collectively the "Patents" or the "Patents-in-Suit").2 EagleView's two software tools, Render House and Twister, embody the inventions of the Patents and are used to generate EagleView's roof estimate reports.3
Defendants Verisk and Xactware, a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Verisk, are competitors of EagleView in the construction and insurance markets. EagleView brought this case alleging that Defendants infringed its asserted claims4 of the Patents by selling their Xactimate product in combination with Aerial Sketch Version 2, Property In Sight, Roof In Sight, and the Mass Production Tool in combination with Xactimate, Property In Sight and Roof In Sight to generate their roof estimate reports.
The evidence at trial revealed that EagleView's patented technology revolutionized the roofing industry. The technology obviated the need for manual measurements of roofs with a tape measure in order to estimate the cost of repairing a roof. (Tr. Transcript, Dkt. 804, at 537, 540, 555; PTX-511). Generally speaking, the patented technology uses aerial pictures of a roof to create a three-dimensional graphical representation or model, from which accurate measurements of roof dimensions can be calculated to determine the cost of repairs. The Patents’ improvement over the manual method had at least three clear advantages: improved safety--the technology bypassed the need for a person to climb up onto a roof to take measurements, decreased measurement time, and perhaps most importantly, increased accuracy. (Tr. Transcript, Dkt. 804, at 537, 540, 563, 718). The evidence regarding this breakthrough was overwhelming.
As early as 2009, years before this case began, even the Defendants recognized the value of EagleView's technology, praising it as "cutting-edge" (PTX-615.2), "very accurate" (PTX-615.1), "innovative," (PTX-076.1), "a breakthrough" (Id. ), and unlike "anything that [previously] emerged as possible." (PTX-615.1) EagleView's product was in high demand; Defendants’ own customers were asking them about it. (See PTX-615)( )
EagleView was the only real competitor of Defendants in the market5 offering such a groundbreaking and valuable product. Although the companies at one time discussed merging, see infra, the deals fell through. This litigation ensued. Putting it mildly, the trial exposed the parties’ dislike of each other. The jury sorted through all the evidence – an enmity - and sided for Plaintiff, finding that Xactware and Verisk willfully infringed EagleView's Patents by not only offering their own nearly similar version of a roof report but aggressively attempting to muscle EagleView out of the market by undercutting EagleView on price.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) provides, in relevant part, "[i]n ruling on the renewed motion [for a new trial], 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 district court ought to grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence only where a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were to stand." Dunn v. HOVIC, 1 F.3d 1362, 1364 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Williamson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344, 1352 (3d Cir. 1991) ).
On a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the issue is " ‘whether the evidence and justifiable inferences most favorable to the [non-moving] party afford any rational basis for the verdict.’ " Delli Santi v. CNA Ins. Companies, 88 F.3d 192, 200 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Anastasio v. Schering Corp., 838 F.2d 701, 705 (3d Cir. 1988) ).
" ‘Determination of whether a new trial should be granted or a judgment entered under Rule 50(b) calls for the judgment in the first instance of the judge who saw and heard the witnesses and has the feel of the case.’ " Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 401, 126 S.Ct. 980, 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006) (quoting Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U.S. 212, 216, 67 S.Ct. 752, 91 L.Ed. 849 (1947) ).
Defendants first contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the Asserted Claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims "are directed to" an abstract idea and the elements do not add any "inventive concept." (Moving Brief, Dkt. 864, at 9-17). EagleView disagrees, contending that the Asserted Claims are directed to inventive and concrete improvements in roof-estimation technology that rely on unconventional correlations of non-stereoscopic images to generate three-dimensional roof models. Specifically, the Patents "solve the specific problem of generating a roof repair estimate without direct human measurement of a roof" using the "concrete and specific technological solution of a computer's correlating, with or without user input, different location [ ] points on two, different, non-stereoscopic aerial views." (Sur-Reply Brief, Dkt. 897, at 2). To that end, the claims go on to recite specific implementations that improve the functioning of the technological process. Defendants also contest Judge Kugler's6 decision not to submit the question of § 101 eligibility to the jury.7
The Asserted Claims, Claims 2 and 36 of the ‘436 Patent, Claim 10 of the ‘840 Patent, Claim 20 of the ‘396 Patent, Claim 26 of the ‘454 Patent and Claim 12 of the ‘770 Patent provide:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CleanSpark, Inc. v. Discover Growth Fund, LLC
... ... Cf. Policy Administration Solutions, Inc. v. QBE Holdings, Inc. , No. 15-CV-2473, 2019 WL 4126464, at *6 ... ...
-
Roofr Inc. v. Eagle View Techs.
...before the district court was that the' 840 patent was conceived no later than December 2,2006, and reduced to practice by January 1, 2008. Id. interest to this proceeding is the relationship between Sungevity and Kennedy. Kennedy, at issue here, is the published application that led to Sun......
-
Eagle View Techs. v. Roofr, Inc.
...denying Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the basis of § 101. EagleView Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Sols., Inc., 485 F.Supp.3d 505 (D.N.J. 2020) (hereinafter "Xactware ID). The second decision involved five patents and six claims, including claim 10 of the '840 patent. Id. ......