EMC Corporation, et al. v. Pure Storage, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1985 – RGA, September 1, 2016.

Andrews, J. Defendant’s renewed JMOL and new trial motion is denied in part with respect to JMOL and granted in part and denied in part with respect to a new trial.  Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is denied as moot.

Trial took place beginning March 7, 2016. The jury found that plaintiff prevailed on one of the three patents-in-suit and awarded reasonable royalty damages in the amount of $14 million. The technology relates to systems and methods for efficient data storage, including eliminating data redundancy using deduplication. The court finds that a reasonable jury could have found defendant failed to meet its burden to prove anticipation with respect to certain prior art references.  However, the jury did not make a finding whether a particular reference, the sun patent, discloses each and every limitation of the asserted claims of the disputed patent. A reasonable jury could find that this patent discloses or does not disclose the claimed “space efficient, probabilistic summary.”  This question cannot be decided as a matter of law and is therefore a fact question for the jury. Defendant is entitled to JMOL with respect to other disclosures in this prior art reference. A new trial is granted on the issue of anticipation by the sun patent.