PTAB’s Finding of Unpatentability Supports Post-Trial JMOL of No Willful Infringement

The court granted defendant's motion for relief from the jury's finding of willful infringement because defendant presented a substantial question of invalidity. "At trial, [defendant] presented evidence of invalidity due to obviousness as to all ten of the patents-in-suit, as well as anticipation evidence as to six of the ten patents. The Court denied [plaintiff's] mid-trial Rule 50(a) Motion as to the majority of [defendant's] invalidity defenses, granting it only as to the anticipation of two of the patents. In so ruling, the Court found that [defendant] had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in its favor on its claim that each of the patents-in-suit was invalid as obvious. [Defendant's] invalidity arguments, though ultimately found unpersuasive by the jury, were supported by expert testimony from [two experts] who opined as to each claim and each patent at issue. . . . This finding is further supported by the proceedings brought with respect to [two] patents before the [PTAB], which resulted in a finding of invalidity as to [one] patent, and a hearing as to the possible invalidity of the [other] patent. While this evidence was not before the jury, it bolsters the Court’s present finding that [defendant's] invalidity defenses met the minimal standard of objective reasonableness, at least as to some of [plaintiff's] patents."

XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, 1-13-cv-00876 (COD April 8, 2016, Order) (Martinez, J.)