Innovation Scis., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-474 |
| Parties | INNOVATION SCIENCES, LLC, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Innovation's Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or Alternatively, Rule 59(a) Motion for a New Trial (Dkt. #908). Having considered the motion and record, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion should be DENIED.
Innovation Sciences, LLC ("Innovation") sued Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital Services, Inc., Amazon Digital Services, LLC, Amazon Web Services, LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (collectively, "Amazon") for patent infringement (Dkt. #79 at p. 1). The suit involves the '798 Patent Family, including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,942,798 ("the '798 Patent"), 9,912,983 ("the '983 Patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 9,729,918 ("the '918 Patent") (collectively, the "Asserted Patents") (Dkt. #79). Along the way to trial, some Amazon entities merged with other Amazon entities.
On September 2, 2020, the jury returned a defense verdict after an eight-day trial. The jury found no patent infringement; that the asserted claims are invalid; and that the asserted claims involved only technology which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as of August 10, 2006 (Dkt. #853).
After this verdict, the Court asked the parties to submit a joint final judgment. After several months, the parties continued to disagree about how, if at all, the Court should enter judgment on patent eligibility, which defendants should be named, and court costs. After receiving full briefing, on February 26, 2021, the Court entered final judgment for Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. on all claims (Dkt. #897). The final judgment also stated the jury's finding that "the asserted claims were each well-understood, routine, and conventional as of the time of the asserted patents" (Dkt. #897).
On March 26, 2021, Innovation filed its 50(b) and 59(a) motion (Dkt. #908). On April 30, 2021, Amazon responded (Dkt. #939). On May 14, 2021, Innovation replied (Dkt. #949).
Upon a party's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict, the Court should properly ask whether "the state of proof is such that reasonable and impartial minds could reach the conclusion the jury expressed in its verdict." Am. Home Assurance Co. v. United Space All., 378 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2004). "A JMOL may only be granted when, 'viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at any contrary conclusion." Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 717 F.3d 1255, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation, Inc., 361 F.3d 831, 838 (5th Cir. 2004)).
Under Fifth Circuit law, a court should be "especially deferential" to a jury's verdict and must not reverse the jury's findings unless substantial evidence does not support the findings. Baisden v. I'm Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 499 (5th Cir. 2012). "Substantial evidence is defined as evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions." Threlkeld v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 211F.3d 887, 891 (5th Cir. 2000). A motion for judgment as a matter of law must be denied "unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant's favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion." Baisden, 693 F.3d at 498 (citation omitted). However, "[t]here must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence in the record to prevent judgment as a matter of law in favor of the movant." Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care, Inc., 493 F.3d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 2007).
In evaluating a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a court must "draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict and cannot substitute other inferences that [the court] might regard as more reasonable." E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 731 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). However, "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000). "[T]he court should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that 'evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that the evidence comes from disinterested witnesses."' Id. at 151 (citation omitted).
Under Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a new trial can be granted "for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a). "A new trial may be granted, for example, if the district court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course." Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610, 613 (5th Cir. 1985). However, "[u]nless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence—or any other error by the court or a party—is grounds for granting a newtrial . . . At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights." FED. R. CIV. P. 61.
To be entitled to a new trial, the movant must show that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, not merely against the preponderance of the evidence. Taylor v. Seton Healthcare, No. A-10-CV-650 AWA, 2012 WL 2396880, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2012) (citing Dresser-Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation, Inc., 361 F.3d 831, 838-39 (5th Cir. 2004); Shows v. Jamison Bedding, Inc., 671 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1982)). A jury verdict is entitled to great deference. Dresser-Rand Co., 671 F.2d at 839. "Weighing the conflicting evidence and the inferences to be drawn from that evidence, and determining the relative credibility of the witnesses, are the province of the jury, and its decision must be accepted if the record contains any competent and substantial evidence tending fairly to support the verdict." Gibraltar Savings v. LDBrinkman Corp., 860 F.2d 1275, 1297 (5th Cir. 1988).
Innovation renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law and argues there was insufficient evidence for the jury's verdict. Alternatively, Innovation asks the Court to order a new trial. After considering each request, the Court finds the jury's verdict was supported and denies the motion.
Innovation asks the Court to enter judgment that the asserted claims were not proven invalid (Dkt. #908 at pp. 9-14). At trial, Amazon raised multiple grounds for invalidity, including written description, anticipation, and obviousness (See Dkt. #908 at p. 10). Because the jury did not specify which evidentiary theory it applied, Innovation must now establish that no theory is supported by substantial evidence. See i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 849 (Fed.Cir. 2010), aff'd, 564 U.S. 91 (2011). This is because the Court "assume[s] the jury considered all the evidence and relied upon a factual theory for which the burden of proof was satisfied." Id.
Upon review, the Court finds that Amazon's written description theory is supported by substantial evidence. As the jury's verdict on invalidity is supported by at least one theory, the Court denies Innovation's motion on this ground.
a. Written Description
At trial, Amazon argued the asserted claims were invalid for lacking an adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Section 112 requires the applicant to Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis original). In other words, written description "is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device." Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Innovation makes three arguments why Amazon's written description defense fails. First, the jury instruction incorrectly stated the standard. Second, Amazon provided no evidence that the asserted claims are not supported by the February 2, 2007 specification. And third, the written description defense should not have been presented to the jury because Amazon stipulated to the priority date. All are unpersuasive.
The Court provided the jury the following instruction on written description:
The written description requirement is designed to ensure that the inventor was in possession of the full scope of the claimed invention as of the patent's effective filing date. Amazon contends that claim(s) of Innovation Sciences' patents are invalid because their shared specification does not show by clear and convincing evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the field reading the patent specification as of the patents' effective filing date, which in this case is either August 10, 2006 (Application No. 11/501,747) or February2, 2007 (Provisional Application No. 60/899,037), would not have recognized that it describes the full scope of the invention as it is finally claimed in the asserted claims of the asserted patents. If a patent claim lacks adequate written description, it is invalid.
(Dkt. #845 at p. 23) (Innovation's emphasis, see Dkt. #908 at p. 11).
Innovation takes issue with the Court's use of "effective...
To continue reading
Request your trial