Federal Judiciary

Eastern District Jury's Verdict for Patent Defendant Affirmed: Plaintiff's JMOL Denied

By Michael C. Smith

Candela Corp. v. Palomar Medical Technologies, 2008 WL 5480563 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2008).
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Jury's Burning of Patent at the Stake DENIED
When speaking at seminars, like last week, I often get asked what the win/loss rate at trial is, and I'm always reluctant to provide too-current answers, since some cases change during the post-trial stage.  Accordingly, I try to avoid adding a case to the win/loss column until after the post-trial motions are disposed of and judgment is entered.  I had a couple of those hit my stack this past week, hence this particular post.
Readers may recall that on October 7, a Lufkin jury in Judge Clark's court rendered a defense verdict in the Candela Corp. v. Palomar Medical Technologies case, 9:06cv277.  The jury found that neither accused product infringed any of the asserted claims, then lit their torches and burned the patent at the stake, finding that the defendant had shown by clear and convincing evidence that all four claims were invalid as anticipated by one of the four references listed and that two of the claims were invalid as obvious in light of four combinations of references.  Candela represented back to back verdicts in Marshall and Lufkin of noninfringement and invalidity.  Never see the national press reporting that, I notice.
But I digress.  On December 30, Judge Clark rejected the plaintiff's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to these two invalidity defenses.  It does not appear there was any motion with respect to the jury's finding of noninfringement, so it appears that upon entry of judgment, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant and its patent will be interred together.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on January 20, 2009 (boomark / email).