Wis. Alumni Research Found. v. Apple, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 June 2017
• Docket Number: 14–cv–062–wmc
• Citation: 261 F.Supp.3d 900
• Parties: WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin

261 F.Supp.3d 900

WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Plaintiff,

v.APPLE, INC., Defendant.

14–cv–062–wmc

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

Signed June 6, 2017

Alan J. Heinrich, Gary N. Frischling, Jason G. Sheasby, Morgan Chu, Amy Elizabeth Proctor, Anthony Quay Rowles, Brian P. Eggleston, Christopher T. Abernethy, Hong Annita Zhong, Jackson S. Trugman, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jennifer Lynn Gregor, Bryan J. Cahill, Godfrey & Kahn S.C., Madison, WI, for Plaintiff.

Mark D. Selwyn, Michael Silhasek, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Andrea J. W. Jeffries, David C. Marcus, David Peer, Derek Anthony Gosma, James Murphy Dowd, Matthew James Hawkinson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew J. Danford, Bryan Scott Conley, Felicia H. Ellsworth, Gregory Paul Teran, Jordan Hirsch, Lauren B. Fletcher, Richard Goldenberg, William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Catherine Cetrangolo, Cetra Law Firm, LLC, Madison, WI, Michael Pieja, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM M. CONLEY, District Judge

In this opinion and order, the court addresses a slew of post-trial motions. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") and awarded damages in the amount of $234 million. Invoking Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59(3), defendant Apple, Inc., challenges virtually every aspect of the jury's verdicts, and myriad decisions made both before and during the trial by the court. (Dkt. # 677.) For the reasons that follow, the court will deny that motion in its entirety. WARF also moves under Rule 59(e) to alter the court's grant of judgment in Apple's favor on plaintiff's willful infringement claim. Applying the new standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1923, 195 L.Ed.2d 278 (2016), the court again concludes that WARF has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating willful infringement. Accordingly, that motion will also be denied.

The remaining motions are all WARF's: for equitable relief (dkt. # 683); for an accounting, supplemental damages through the date of judgment, and pre- and post-judgment interest (dkt. # 685); and for taxation of costs (dkt. ## 689, 725). For the reasons that follow, the court will award an ongoing royalty rate of $2.74 per unit from the date of judgment, October 25, 2015. The court will also award supplemental damages at the per unit royalty rate awarded by the jury from June 27, 2015, to October 25, 2015.¹ The court will also award pre-judgment interest at the prime rate, compounded quarterly, and will award post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, compounded annually. The calculations for supplemental damages and pre-judgment interest will await further submissions by the parties. Finally, the court will award WARF costs in the total amount of $841,587.66.

BACKGROUND

In this patent lawsuit, WARF alleged that Apple infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,781,752 (the " '752 patent"). In response, Apple asserted various counterclaims, which challenge the validity of the patent. On the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the court granted partial judgment to WARF on: (1) Apple's counterclaims and defenses for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,619,662 ("Steely" or the "Steely patent") ; and (2) Apple's counterclaim and defense for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 with respect to claims 5 and 6 of the '752 patent. (8/6/15 Op. & Order (dkt. # 193).)

The case then proceeded to a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of WARF, finding that Apple infringed all six of the asserted claims and rejecting Apple's invalidity defense as to each of those six claims. (10/13/15 Liability Special Verdict (dkt. # 603).) In the second phase of the trial, the jury answered two more questions in favor of WARF, finding Apple vicariously liable for Samsung's manufacture of Apple products, and awarded WARF $234,277,669.00 in damages. (10/19/15 Damages Special Verdict (dkt. # 642).)

During the course of trial, the court also granted WARF judgment as a matter of law on one of Apple's noninfringement defenses based on the claim of a "prediction threshold detector preventing data speculation for instructions having a prediction within a predetermined range," finding that Apple had failed to put forth a factual basis for that defense to support a reasonable jury finding noninfringement on that basis. (10/16/15 Op. & Order (dkt. # 639).) Finally, the court granted judgment in favor of Apple on WARF's willful infringement claim. (10/15/15 Op. & Order (dkt. # 623).)

OPINION

I. Apple's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and/or New Trial (dkt. # 677)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, judgment as a matter of law may be granted where there is no "legally sufficient evidentiary basis" to find for the party on that issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). In considering a Rule 50(a) motion, the court is to "construe the facts strictly in favor of the party that prevailed at trial." including drawing "[a]ll reasonable inferences in that party's favor and disregarding all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe." May v. Chrysler Group, LLC , 692 F.3d 734, 742 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), withdrawn in part on reh'g , 716 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2013). In particular, the court does not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, although the court must assure that "more than ‘a mere scintilla of evidence’ supports the verdict." Id. (quoting Hossack v. Floor Covering Assocs. of Joliet, Inc. , 492 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2007) ). Essentially, the court's "job is to decide whether a highly charitable assessment of the evidence supports the jury's verdict or if, instead, the jury was irrational to reach its conclusion." May , 692 F.3d at 742.

A further limitation applies as well: "Because the Rule 50(b) motion is only a renewal of the preverdict motion, it can be granted only on grounds advanced in the preverdict motion." Wallace v. McGlothan , 606 F.3d 410, 418 (7th Cir. 2010) ; see also Thompson v. Mem'l Hosp. of Carbondale , 625 F.3d 394, 407 (7th Cir. 2010) (refusing to consider the defendant's argument that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he suffered an adverse employment action, in part, because the defendant did not raise argument in Rule 50(a) motion); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 cmt. 1991 Amendments ("A post-trial motion for judgment can be granted only on grounds advanced in the pre-verdict motion.").

Defendant also moves for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. "A new trial may be granted only if the jury's verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence." King v. Harrington , 447 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing ABM Marking, Inc. v. Zanasi Fratelli, S.R.L. , 353 F.3d 541, 545 (7th Cir. 2003) ). To meet this standard, defendant must demonstrate that no rational jury could have rendered a verdict against Apple. King , 447 F.3d at 534 (citing Woodward v. Corr. Med. Servs. of Ill., Inc. , 368 F.3d 917, 926 (7th Cir. 2004) ). In making this evaluation, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, leaving issues of credibility and weight of evidence to the jury. King , 447 F.3d at 534. "The court must sustain the verdict where a ‘reasonable basis’ exists in the record to support the outcome." Id. (quoting Kapelanski v. Johnson , 390 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir. 2004) ).

In this case, the evidence easily supports the jury's findings of infringement on all three disputed elements of the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit: (1) "detecting a mis-speculation"; (2) "the particular data consuming instruction"; and (3) "flag value." (Def.'s Mot. (dkt. # 555) 4–9.) While Apple's Rule 50(b) motion extends beyond the arguments raised in its 50(a) motion, WARF does not oppose it on that basis. As such, the court will address that motion, briefly, while ultimately rejecting all of the arguments raised by Apple.

A. Infringement

In its pending Rule 50(b) motion, Apple contends the accused products lack at least three elements required by the '752 patent, and, therefore, no reasonable jury could find that Apple literally infringed any of the asserted claims of the '752 patent. First , Apple contends that no reasonable jury could have found that Apple's accused products satisfy the "detecting a mis-speculation" and "mis-speculation indication" elements. Apple argues that the accused products detect only data dependence, not mis-speculations, but WARF submitted evidence—largely through its expert Professor Conte—showing Apple's data speculation circuit, the Load–Store Unit, is capable of both detecting data dependence and detecting mis-speculation.

Specifically, Conte testified that the Load Queue in the Load–Store Unit detects a mis-speculation between a Load and a Store by comparing the program order of the older Store and younger Load, confirming that the instructions have an address overlap, and ensuring that the younger Load has in fact executed before the older Store. (See Pl.'s Opp'n (dkt. # 711) 21 (citing Conte testimony).) When a mis-speculation is detected, the Load Store Unit then produces a Store–Hit–Younger–Load Redirect, which is a mis-speculation indication. (See id. ) Conte further testified that, and provided an illustration for the jury to better understand how, the timing of Apple's processor necessarily satisfies the "detecting a mis-speculation" and "mis-speculation indication" elements. (Id. at 31–32.) In other words, this step is "baked into" Apple's processor. (Id. at 31.)

In its reply, Apple argues principally that "a processor cannot literally detect or indicate a mis-speculation absent an explicit check." (Def.'s Reply (dkt. # 728) 15 ...