Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cioffi v. Google, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division

March 29, 2018

ALFONSO CIOFFI, MELANIE ROZMAN, MEGAN ROZMAN, MORGAN ROZMAN, THE ESTATE OF ALLEN FRANK ROZMAN, MELANIE ROZMAN, MEGAN ROZMAN, MORGAN ROZMAN, Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Defendant Google Inc.'s (“Google”) Motion for Post-trial Relief on Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 251. (Dkt. No. 292.) Having considered the Motion, the relevant authorities, and the entirety of the record currently before the Court, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as set forth herein.

         I. Background

         A. The Asserted Patents

         Alfonso Cioffi, Megan Rozman, Melanie Rozman, and Morgan Rozman (collectively, “Cioffi”) accused Google of infringing U.S. Reissue Patent Nos. RE43, 500 (“the '500 Patent”), RE43, 528 (“the '528 Patent”), and RE43, 529 (“the '529 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Each asserted patent is titled “System and Method for Protecting a Computer System from Malicious Software” and is a reissue derived from U.S. Patent No. 7, 494, 247 (“the original patent” or “the '247 Patent”). (PTX-001; PTX-002; PTX-003; and PTX-004.)

         B. Procedural History

         Cioffi filed this case on February 5, 2013, asserting that Google infringed several claims of the Asserted Patents. (Dkt. No. 1.)

         A jury trial was commenced on February 6, 2017. On February 10, 2017, the jury returned a unanimous verdict, (Dkt. No. 259), finding that the asserted claims were infringed and not invalid. (Id.) Specifically, as to invalidity, the jury found that Google did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the invalidity of Claim 67 of the '528 Patent as anticipated, as violating the rule against recapture, or as violating the original patent requirement; (2) the invalidity of Claim 43 of the '500 Patent as obvious, as violating the rule against recapture, or as violating the original patent requirement; (3) the invalidity of Claim 5 of the '528 Patent as obvious, or as violating the original patent requirement; or (4) the invalidity of Claim 49 of the '529 Patent as obvious in view of prior art, or as violating the original patent requirement. (Id.)

         After the trial, Google filed the instant Motion seeking either entry of judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P 50(b) or the granting of a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. (Dkt. No. 292.) On September 15, 2017, the Court entered Final Judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict. (Dkt. No. 308.)

         II. Applicable Law

         After a jury trial on the merits, a party may file a motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 59.

         A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

         “A motion for judgment as a matter of law [under Rule 50(b)] is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict.” Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., 276 F.Supp.3d 629, 643 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (“UroPep”) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation). Entry of judgment as a matter of law is therefore only appropriate when “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as the jury did.” Guile v. United States, 422 F.3d 221, 225 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Baisden v. I'm Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491, 498 (5th Cir. 2012) (“A district court must deny a motion for judgment as a matter of law unless the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant's favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion.” (emphasis added, internal quotation marks removed)).[1]

         “In evaluating a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a court must ‘draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict.'” Metaswitch Networks Ltd. v. Genband U.S. LLC, No. 2:14-CV-00744-JRG, 2017 WL 3704760, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2017) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. Boh Bros. Const. Co., L.L.C., 731 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2013)). Courts must also avoid the temptation of revisiting credibility determinations or reweighing evidence. Id. Such determinations are, appropriately, left to the jury. Montano v. Orange Cty., Texas, 842 F.3d 865, 874 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[I]t is for the jury alone to judge the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence.”).

         B. Motion for New Trial

         Rule 59 provides that a new trial may be granted on all or part of the issues on which there has been a trial by jury for “any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). Notwithstanding the broad sweep of Rule 59, “courts do not grant new trials unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has crept into the record or that substantial justice has not been done, and the burden of showing harmful error rests on the party seeking the new trial.” Metaswitch, No. 2:14-CV-00744-JRG, 2017 WL 3704760, at *2; UroPep, 276 F.Supp.3d at 643. “A new trial may be granted, for example, if the district court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course.” Smith v. Transworld Drilling ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.