Interdigital Communications, Inc., et al. v. ZTE Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 13-0009 - RGA, March 18, 2016

Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial is denied with respect to two of the patents-in-suit and postponed with respect to a third.

A 6-day jury trial took place October 20 - 27, 2014 resulting in a verdict of infringement and validity on three patents. A mistrial was declared as to the fourth patent.  The court entered judgment against plaintiff on that patent after a second trial. The PTAB meanwhile invalidated all claims of the third patent, which is now on appeal. The patents at issue claim a device and procedure for establishing a communication session between a cellphone and a cellular network.  Defendants argue that they are entitled to JMOL on one patent because plaintiff did not introduce substantial evidence to show defendants’ phones generate both successively transmitted signals and the message using the same code, and further that their accused phones satisfy the “synchronize to a/the pilot signal” limitations. The court disagrees, finding that the testimony of plaintiff’s expert was sufficient, noting plaintiff does not bear the burden of proving non-infringement.  The court postpones decision on the JMOL motion regarding the third patent until the Federal Circuit rules. The court denies the motion for a new trial.