IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Deere’s post-trial motions denied in seed planting system dispute, (Mar 29, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Deere’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and other relief to reverse a jury’s verdict of no infringement were denied because they had been waived and were otherwise unsupported.

Deere & Company was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law after a jury found that it had failed to show competitor AGCO Corporation infringed its seed planting equipment patents, the U.S. District Court in Wilmington has held. Derere’s arguments had been waived and were based on a flawed claim construction argument (Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp., March 28, 2023, Connolly, C.).

Deere & Company (Deere) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 8,813,663 (the ’663 patent) and 9,699,955 (the ’955 patent), both of which concerned agricultural machinery for planting seeds. Deere sued AGCO Corporation and Precision Planting LLC (collectively, Precision) for infringement. After a four-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement, and in accordance with the instructions on the verdict sheet, did not reach Precision’s invalidity counterclaims. Deere moved for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and to amend or correct the judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50, 52, 54, 59, and 60.

Rules 52, 54, and 60. The court held that any argument under these rules was waived because Deere did not address the governing standards or mention the rules in any way after the first sentence of its motion.

Judgment as a matter of law. The court held that Deere had waived its right to a post-trial motion under Rule 50(b) because it had failed to make a motion for judgment of infringement as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff’s case under Rule 50(a). The court also reviewed the evidence presented at trial, and held that even if Deere had not waived the right to make this motion it would not be entitled to relief because Precision had adduced substantial evidence in the form of expert testimony and video of the workings of the accused products from which a jury could reasonably have found noninfringement.

New trial. Deere argued that a new trial was warranted because the trial judge had given inconsistent and confusing constructions of claim terms. The court reviewed the transcript and found that it had given only one construction of the disputed term, but that Deere’s counsel had presented a slide to the jury during opening argument which had inserted additional language to the construction which the court had adopted in a Markman order some two years previously. The court allowed this in opening as an argument which Deere was allowed to make, but did not allow Deere to claim that the court had actually endorsed this construction.

Deere also argued that Precision had been allowed to argue two different claim constructions: a broad one when it argued invalidity; and a narrow one when it argued noninfringement. The court held that this was a misreading of the argument that had been made, which was only that Precision’s counsel had told the jury the term should be interpreted the same way, and that if it was broad enough to cover the accused product it was also broad enough to be covered by the prior art.

Finding that Deere’s remaining arguments were moot, the court denied all of its post-trial motions.

The Case is No. 1:18-cv-00827-CFC-JLH.

Attorneys: Adam Wyatt Poff (Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP) for Deere & Co. Jack B. Blumenfeld (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP) for AGCO Corp. and Precision Planting LLC.

Companies: Deere & Co.; AGCO Corp.; Precision Planting LLC

Cases: Patent DelawareNews