UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 24, 2010
CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL GMBH AND CARL ZEISS VISION INC.,, PLAINTIFFS,
SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 1, 5 AND 6 OF THE '713 PATENT, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OF LITERAL INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 6 OF THE '713 PATENT AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OF LITERAL INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 1 OF THE '713 PATENT AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. [Docket Nos. 887, 890, 894]
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motions for judgment as a matter of law of literal infringement of claims 1 and 6 of the '713 Patent and Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement of claims 1, 5 and 6 of the '713 Patent. Each side has filed opposition and reply briefs to each motion. For the reasons set out below, the Court denies the motions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1) provides: If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). In the Ninth Circuit, "'[j]udgment as a matter of law is appropriate when the evidence presented at trial permits only one reasonable conclusion.'" Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. denied by Roberts v. Torres, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1995 (2009), (quoting Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2002)). "In other words, '[a] motion for a judgment as a matter of law is properly granted only if no reasonable juror could find in the non-moving party's favor.'" Id. (quoting El-Hakem v. BJY Inc., 415 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)). When considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court must view the evidence "'in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of that party.'" Id. at 1205-06 (quoting LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2000)). "'If conflicting inferences may be drawn from the facts, the case must go to the jury.'" Id. at 1206 (quoting LaLonde, 204 F.3d at 959).
Here, the Court has reviewed the evidence on the issue of infringement, and finds that a reasonable jury would have a sufficient evidentiary basis to find for either party. Accordingly, neither side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b).
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's motions for judgment as a matter of law of literal infringement of claims 1 and 6 of the '713 Patent and denies Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement of claims 1, 5 and 6 of the '713 Patent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.