Riverbed Technology Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems Inc., 1-11-cv-00484 (DED September 12, 2014, Order) (Andrews, J.)
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Circumstantial Evidence of Direct Infringement Sufficient to Support Indirect Infringement Claim
The court denied plaintiff's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement of defendant's network patent where defendant had no direct evidence of customer use of the infringing features in the U.S. "Even though [defendant] offered no direct evidence of customer use inside the United States, its circumstantial evidence is just barely sufficient to convince the Court not to disturb the jury's verdict. . . . [Plaintiff] is a billion dollar company with extensive sales. . . . [Defendant] has offered evidence of [plaintiff's] high sales volume, an instruction manual describing how to activate SDR-A, and several blog entries on [plaintiff's] U.S. support forum from people who used [plaintiff's] devices with SDR-A enabled. Taken together, this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to permit a jury to reasonably conclude 'that, sometime during the relevant period , more likely than not one person somewhere in the United States had performed the claimed method using the [plaintiff's] products.'"