Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Canon Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-792-SLR, May 18, 2015

Robinson, J.  Defendant’s JMOL and new trial motions regarding the ‘081 and ‘686 patents is denied. Its JMOL and new trial motion relating to the second trial is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s JMOL motion as to the second trial is denied as moot, and its motion for a new trial is granted. 

The disputed technology relates to the manufacture and use of digital cameras.  A 5-day trial regarding two patents was followed by a 6-day trial on two patents in April and May, 2014.  Defendant moved for JMOL of non-infringement but did not move on the basis of invalidity. The court found that defendant waived the right to JMOL on obviousness. The jury could properly credit the testimony of plaintiff’s experts and denies defendant’s infringement motion. In the second trial, defendant moved for JMOL as to anticipation but did not raise obviousness and therefore the obviousness motion was denied. Because plaintiff’s interpretation of “digital image magnification” is inconsistent with the court’s construction, defendant’s JMOL anticipation motion is granted.  Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial regarding the ‘960 and ‘348 patents is granted. Plaintiff accused defendant of induced infringement, and the jury returned a verdict of no infringement under both patents.  The court finds that defendant’s counsel played the role of expert witness and took improper liberties in arguing that the accused devices did not meet certain limitations of the claims.  The court’s curative instructions, upon further reflection, were insufficient and the court orders a new trial and does not therefore consider plaintiff’s alternative motion for JMOL.