IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. Tex.: Samsung loses bid for post-trial judgment of non-infringement of Rembrandt patents, (Feb 18, 2016)

By Mark Engstrom, J.D.

Samsung was not entitled to a post-trial judgment of non-infringement of two Rembrandt Wireless patents, both of which described a wireless communications system that used multiple methods of modulating a carrier signal, the federal district court in Marshall, Texas, has ruled (Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, L.P. v. Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., February 17, 2016, Gilstrap, R.). The court denied Samsung’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) as to patent infringement and also denied JMOL on Samsung’s claims that the asserted patents were invalid as obvious.

The asserted claims of the patents in suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,023,580 and 8,457,228) involved a system that allowed wireless devices to communicate on the same network using different methods of modulation. A jury found that the asserted claims were not invalid and were infringed by Samsung. Rembrandt was awarded $15.7 million in damages, and Samsung’s challenge to the amount of damages was denied.

Samsung filed a renewed motion for JMOL and/or a motion for a new trial. According to Samsung, the jury lacked sufficient evidence for its findings. To prevail, Samsung had to prove that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient basis to render a verdict in favor of Rembrandt.

Validity. Samsung argued that its unrebutted trial evidence clearly and convincingly showed that the asserted claims were invalid as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428, in combination with other prior art. In Samsung’s view, JMOL was warranted on the issue of obviousness.

The court noted that the parties offered competing expert testimony on the obviousness issue. According to the court, the jury was free to weigh the competing testimonies and the credibility of the parties’ witnesses. Ultimately, the jury agreed with Rembrandt’s expert and found that the asserted patents were valid.

The court refused to substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Applying a “clear and convincing” standard of proof, the jury found that the asserted patents were not invalid, and the court could not conclude that no reasonable jury could have rendered that finding. In the court’s view, JMOL was unwarranted, with respect to obviousness.

Claim construction. The court noted that a magistrate judge had carefully considered the patent, the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, and the parties’ arguments, and thereafter issued a “substantial and carefully reasoned” order on claim construction. Nevertheless, Samsung sought to reopen the claim construction issues that the magistrate had previously addressed, and it waited until after the trial had completed and the verdict had been rendered to do so.

According to the court, the proper construction of the claim terms “modulation method [] of a different type” and “different types of modulation methods,” as raised by Samsung in its motion for a new trial, received full and fair treatment by the magistrate judge, who had previously considered the same arguments that Samsung was raising in its post-trial motion.

After considering the arguments of both parties and the language of the patent, the magistrate declined to adopt the construction that Samsung was now urging. The magistrate’s decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law, the court explained, and had not created a prejudicial error that would warrant a new trial. The court thus denied Samsung’s motion for new trial based on an incorrect claim construction.

Infringement. Samsung noted that Rembrandt had withdrawn, on the eve of trial, seven claims of one patent and six claims of the other, and for that reason, no evidence of infringement had been presented on the dropped claims.

Nevertheless, Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly stated that relief under Rule 50 was appropriate only if the moving party had been fully heard—during a jury trial—on the disputed issue. In this case, neither party had been heard regarding the infringement or non-infringement of the dropped claims. For that reason, relief under Rule 50 was inappropriate, according to the court. Samsung’s motion for JMOL on the issue of infringement was therefore denied, with respect to the dropped claims.

Conclusion. The jury’s finding that Samsung was liable for patent infringement was supported by substantial evidence, the court concluded. Because JMOL and a new trial were both unwarranted, Samsung’s motions were denied.

The case is No. 2:13-cv-213-JRG.

Attorneys: Demetrios Anaipakos (Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing PC) for Rembrandt Wireless Technologies LP. Jeffrey Kirk Sherwood (Venable LLP) for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC.

Companies: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC

Cases: Patent TexasNews