Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Tech. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 6:20-CV-00018-ADA |
| Parties | JIAXING SUPER LIGHTING ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CO., LTD. AND OBERT, INC., Plaintiffs, v. CH LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., ELLIOTT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC. AND SHAOXING RUISING LIGHTING CO., LTD., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Came on for consideration this date are Plaintiffs' Motion for Supplemental Damages, Ongoing Royalty and Enhancement of Post-Verdict Damages, ECF No. 287; Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, ECF No. 291; and Defendants' Motion for New Trial, ECF No. 292. The Court presided over a four-day jury trial from November 1, 2021 to November 4 2021. See ECF Nos. 237-40. At the end, the Jury found Defendants CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. (“CH Lighting” or “CH”), Elliott Electric Supply Inc. (“Elliott”), and Shaoxing Ruising Lighting Co. Ltd. (“Ruising”) (collectively “Defendants”) to have willfully infringed claims of three patents of Plaintiffs Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (“Super Lighting”) and Obert, Inc. (“Obert”) (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Super Lighting”). ECF No. 230.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial, and grant-in-part Plaintiffs' motion for supplemental damages, ongoing royalty and enhancement of post-verdict damages.
On January 10, 2020, Plaintiffs initiated this Action by filing a complaint alleging that Defendants infringe certain U.S. patents. ECF No. 1 (the “Complaint”). On March 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,295,125 (the “'125 patent”), 10,342,078, 10,352,540 (the “'540 patent”), and 10,426,003, 9,939,140 (the “'140 patent”), 10,378,700, 10,448,479, and 10,560,989. ECF No. 21 (the “FAC”). CH answered on December 3, 2020. ECF No. 67. The Plaintiffs' patents and Defendants' accused products are directed to light-emitting diode (LED) tube lamps and features thereof. Super Lighting is a Chinese corporation and Obert is its North American affiliate. ECF No. 21 ¶¶ 1, 2. CH and Ruising are also Chinese corporations and Elliott is a customer of some sort based out of Texas. See, e.g., ECF No. 237 at 40:12-20, 46:18-22, 78:9-79:10. Ruising is the subsidiary of CH charged with selling CH products.[1] See id. at 78:9-79:10. Super Lighting and CH are rivals in the tube lamp space. Ruising is owned at least by Caiying Gan, CEO of CH, and Qingbo “Jack” Jiang, who also runs Ruising. See id. at 78:9-79:10. Before he was at Ruising, Jack Jiang was a Super Lighting employee. He left in 2014 to join Ruising and later convinced Jun Yang, technical assistant and secretary to Super Lighting's CEO and founder, to join him there. See id. at 82:15-83:7. According to Super Lighting's CEO, Mr. Yang had access to Super Lighting's most confidential, technical documents. Id. at 82:24-83:5. Mr. Yang is now a product manager at Ruising. See id. at 204:1-9.
On October 6, 2021, the Court held a pretrial conference in this Action. See ECF Nos. 190, 191. Trial commenced on November 1, 2021. See ECF No. 216. At trial, Plaintiffs had narrowed their case such that they only asserted infringement of claim 1 of the '125 patent, claims 1, 4, 5, 24, 28, and 31 of the '140 patent, and claims 13 and 14 of the '540 patent. Shortly before trial, Defendants stipulated to infringement for all but one accused product-Defendants argued to the Jury that the LT2600 integrated circuit did not infringe the asserted claims of the '140 patent. Defendants also presented an invalidity case against the '125, '140, and '540 patents (the “Asserted Patents”) to the Jury. Id. at 8-9.
On the third day of trial, the Court granted a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) on the issue of the invalidity relating to the three prior-art grounds against that patent; or the asserted claims of the '540 patent were invalid based on one of Defendants' two prior-art grounds against that patent. Id. Defendants based these deficient prior-art grounds on system prior art-physical lighting tubes-that Defendants failed to introduce into evidence before evidence closed. See id.
On November 4, 2021, the Jury rendered a unanimous verdict, finding that Defendants infringed all Asserted Claims and that Defendants failed to prove that any Asserted Claim was invalid. ECF No. 230. The Jury awarded damages in the amount of $13,872,872 from CH and Ruising and $298,454 from Elliott and further found that CH and Ruising willfully infringed.
On November 24, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for enhanced damages and a permanent injunction. ECF Nos. 233, 234. On December 2, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees and entry of judgment. ECF Nos. 241, 242. On July 21, 2022, the Court granted-in-part Plaintiff's Motion for Enhancement of Damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and denied Plaintiffs' Motion for exceptional case, attorney fees and for a permanent injunction. ECF No. 281.
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for supplemental damages, ongoing royalty and enhancement of post-verdict damages. ECF No. 287. And on August 26, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial. ECF Nos. 291-92. The parties briefing on these post-trial motions was completed on September 16, 2022. See ECF Nos. 303, 305, 306. These motions are now ripe for judgment.
A court may grant JMOL against a prevailing party only if a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non-moving party on that issue. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). In deciding a renewed JMOL motion, a “court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State Univ., 984 F.3d 1107, 1112 (5th Cir. 2021). The court must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Id. This is because “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867, 874 (5th Cir. 2013).
Courts grant JMOL for the party bearing the burden of proof only in extreme cases, when the party bearing the burden of proof has established its case by evidence that the jury would not be at liberty to disbelieve, and the only reasonable conclusion is in its favor. Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Medical Device All., Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). JMOL is inappropriate if the record evidence is such that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 579 (5th Cir. 2003).
A jury verdict must stand unless there is a lack of substantial evidence, in the light most favorable to the successful party, to support the verdict. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. United Space All., LLC, 378 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Nichols v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 924 F.3d 802, 808 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, JMOL must be denied if a jury's verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence that amounts to more than a mere scintilla. Laxton, 333 F.3d at 585.
Defendants move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) for three reasons: (1) that there is not substantial evidence to support the Jury's validity findings; (2) that there is not substantial evidence to support the Jury's infringement findings; and (3) and that there is not substantial evidence to support a finding of willfulness. See, generally, ECF No. 291. The Court will address each of these in turn below. As a preliminary matter, however, the Court will address the Plaintiffs' arguments that because this is a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), the Defendants are strictly limited to those arguments that presented under their original Rule 50(a) motion.
Although Defendants cite only the language of Rule 50(a), their motion is actually a renewed motion for JMOL under Rule 50(b). A party forfeits the right to move under Rule 50(b) by failing to move first under Rule 50(a), and issues raised for the first time in a Rule 50(b) motion cannot be considered. i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 845 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff'd, 564 U.S. 91 (2011); see also VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:21-CV-057-ADA, 2022 WL 1477725, at *7 (W.D. Tex. May 10, 2022).
Plaintiffs primarily raise two issues of the impropriety of Defendants' renewed motion for JMOL under Rule 50(b).
First Plaintiffs argue that as to infringement and willful infringement, ECF No. 299 at 4. According to Plaintiffs, “[t]he transcript portions cited by Defendants in their brief did not form any basis to request a Rule 50(b) motion on issues such as infringement and willfulness.” Id. (citing ECF No. 291 at 3, which cites “Trial Tr. Day 3” at 67:22-71:10 (requesting JMOL on invalidity and damages)). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial