A v. Cmi United States, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | ASETEK DANMARK A/S, Plaintiff, v. CMI USA, INC., Defendant. |
This patent infringement case was tried to a jury in December 2014. ECF No. 189. On December 17, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Asetek Danmark A/S ("Asetek"), finding that Defendant CMI USA, Inc. ("CMI")'s products infringed United States Patents Nos. 8,240,362 and 8,245,764 (). ECF Nos. 218, 219.
Now before the Court are three sets of post-judgment motions: (1) CMI's motions for entry of judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b)(3) and for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b)(2) or 59 (ECF No. 269); (2) Asetek's motion for entry of a permanent injunction (ECF No. 266); and (3) Asetek's motion for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest (ECF No. 267). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for entry of judgment as a matter of law is denied, the motion for a new trial is denied, the motion for entry of permanent injunction is granted, and the motion to alter the judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Asetek is a Denmark-based corporation that sells liquid cooling systems for data centers, servers, workstations, and personal computers. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 1, 11, 12. It owns the '764 and '362 patents by assignment. ECF No. 118 at 1. The patents relate to devices that use liquid to cool computer components. See ECF No. 1, Exs. A, B. On January 31, 2013, Asetek filed suit against CMI for infringement of claims 14, 15, and 17-19 of the '362 patent, and claims 1-15, 17, and 18 of the '764 patent, by the following CMI products: (1) Cooler Master Seidon 120M, 120XL, and 240M; (2) Cooler Master Seidon 120V and 120V Plus; (3) Cooler Master Glacer 240L; and (4) Cooler Master Nepton 140XL and 280L. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 130 at 1. In its complaint, Asetek "demand[ed] a jury trial on all matters triable to a jury." ECF No. 1 at 7.
This case was consolidated for claim construction with another patent-infringement suit brought by Asetek involving the '362 and '764 patents. See ECF No. 35 at 1 & n.1. Judge Edward M. Chen presided over the joint claim construction proceeding. Id. Judge Chen's claim construction order addressed several terms relating to the claims in dispute at trial. See id. Judge Chen declined to construe the term "substantially circular passages," and instead adopted the plain and ordinary meaning of that term. Id. at 12-14. The parties did not include the term "removably attached" or "removably coupled" in their joint claim construction statement, and Judge Chen did not construe them. See ECF Nos. 31, 35.
CMI then moved for summary judgment of invalidity of the '362 and '764 patents and non-infringement of the '362 patent. ECF No. 86. CMI argued that the '362 and '764 patents were invalid as both anticipated and obvious. See ECF Nos. 86, 106. Genuine issues of material fact prevented the Court from determining whether CMI's products met the "reasonably attached/coupled" limitation. ECF No. 126 at 14. The Court also determined that the terms "removably coupled" and "removably attached" did not require construction, because they would not be unfamiliar or confusing to a jury. Id. at 14 n.6. The Court denied CMI's motion for summary judgment in full.
The matter then proceeded to trial. In the parties' joint pre-trial statement, CMI stated that it contested infringement only of the '362 patent, and not of the '764 patent. See ECF No. 130 at4-5. CMI also asserted that the '764 and '362 patents were invalid as anticipated, obvious, and indefinite, and because they lacked adequate written descriptions. See id.
Jury selection began on December 2, 2014. On December 17, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in Asetek's favor. ECF No. 219. The jury found that all of the accused products infringed the claims of the '362 patent, and that CMI's products contributorily infringed the asserted method claims of the '362 patent. Id. at 1-2. The jury also found that the '764 patent was not invalid as anticipated by the Koga prior art reference.1 Id. at 2. The jury also rendered several decisions related to the question of obviousness. First, the jury found that a person of ordinary skill in the field of liquid cooling at the time of the inventions claimed in the '764 and '362 patents was:
[S]omeone who has completed college level course work in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer, and would have two or more years of experience in designing liquid cooling systems for computers or very similar technology or one with a more advanced degree in the above fields [who] may have had less practical experience.
Id. at 3. Second, the jury described the scope and content of the prior art at the time of the claimed invention as follows:
The prior art devices included a pump, a single-chamber reservoir (as that term was used in the prior art), and a cold plate as separate components that were connected using tubing or attached together with clips or screws or perm[an]ently coupled. Certain prior art devices had a pump and a cold plate incorporated into a single swirl chamber, which provided no separation between the pumping and the heat exchange functionalities of the liquid cooling device.
Id. Third, the jury determined the differences that existed between the claimed invention and the prior art at the time of the invention. The differences included:
Asetek's patented invention is directed to a closed loop liquid cooling system in which cooling liquid is pumped continuously between a pump head and a heat radiator (positioned remote from the pump head). Rather than connecting together multiple separate components (as in the prior art), Asetek's patented pump head design combines, into a single unit, a pump and the claimed "reservoir" that has, among other things, dual chambers and isbounded by a removable cold plate. Also, the claimed "reservoir" in Asetek's invention is a single receptacle that is divided into an upper chamber and a lower chamber, with the upper chamber providing the pumping function and the lower chamber providing the thermal exchange function. In addition to providing efficient heat removal, Asetek's patented invention includes at least one of the following benefits over each example of prior art: a compact (narrow) profile, cost-effective manufacturing, and reduced risk of fluid leakage.
Id. at 4. Finally, the jury found that Asetek established all objective indicia of non-obviousness that Asetek sought to prove at trial, including: (1) "commercial success of [the] product[s] due to the merits of the claimed invention"; (2) "a long-felt need for the solution that is provided by the claimed invention"; (3) "unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution that is provided by the claimed invention"; (4) "copying of the claimed invention by others"; (5) "unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention"; and (6) "acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown by praise from others in the field or from the licensing of the claimed invention." Id.
The jury also determined that Asetek was entitled to $404,941 in damages, representing a 14.5% royalty rate on CMI's sales of infringing products. ECF No. 219 at 5.
On January 26, 2015, CMI filed its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as its memorandum of points and authorities in support of its defenses. ECF Nos. 234, 235. On February 9, 2015, Asetek filed its responsive proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. ECF No. 236.
On April 21, 2015, the Court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law, ECF No. 249. The Court concluded that CMI failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the '362 and '764 patents were invalid for obviousness, lack of written description, or indefiniteness. CMI, in a post-trial brief, argued that the term "substantially circular passages" was indefinite. See ECF No. 234 at 15-16. But the Court found that CMI waived its indefiniteness defense by not pursuing it at trial. ECF No. 249 at 28. The Court also noted that CMI did not raise the argument that the term "removably attached" was indefinite in its post-trial briefing, and that CMI could not properly pursue the issue at trial. Id.
The parties have now filed various post-trial motions, including CMI's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial, and Asetek's motion for a permanent injunction and motion for supplemental damages.
On June 30, 2015, CMI filed its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial. ECF No. 269. CMI argues that the non-infringement should be granted as a matter of law because the accused products do not infringe the '362 patent as a matter of law and consequently, do not contributorily infringe, and that substantial evidence does not support the jury's finding of a 14.5% royalty rate. See id.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009). In considering a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, under Rule 50(b)(3), the court must uphold the jury's verdict if "substantial evidence" supports the jury's conclusion. Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251 F.3d 1222, 1227 (9th Cir. 2001).2 "Substantial evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial