#Jmol close of evidence trial#

NCR argued that a new trial was necessary because of an instructional error to the jury. (1) The jury was not erroneously instructed. Judge Albright, in denying the motion, rejected NCR’s claims that (1) the jury was erroneously instructed, (2) the jury’s infringement findings were not supported by substantial evidence, (3) the asserted patents were invalid, (4) CoC had not proved willfulness, and (5) the jury’s damages award was not supported by substantial evidence. NCR later filed a Rule 50(b) Motion for JMOL and, alternatively, a Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial on August 10, 2021. The jury awarded CoC lump-sum damages of $13.2 million. On May 17, 2021, following a four-day trial, the jury found that NCR had willfully infringed twelve claims of the asserted patents. Plaintiff CloudofChange, LLC (“CoC”) accused NCR of infringing two patents related to web-based point-of-sale (“POS”) systems. On October 27, 2022, Judge Albright denied Defendant NCR Corporation’s (“NCR”) Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, Alternatively, a New Trial.

International Trade, Customs & Export Controls.Environmental & Energy Compliance & Counseling.Aviation Structured Finance & Securitization.Technology, New Media & Telecommunications Health Care Litigation & Investigations.Health Care Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation.Energy & Infrastructure - Other Infrastructure.Oil & Gas - Oilfield Services & Equipment.White Collar, Regulatory Defense & Investigations.Government Program Fraud, False Claims Act, and Qui Tam Litigation.Bankruptcy & Distressed Company Litigation.Executive Compensation Plans & Agreements.Unfair Competition, Restrictive Covenants & Trade Secrets.Employment Law Advice, Counseling & Training.Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation & Wrongful Termination Litigation.California Employment Counseling & Litigation.Labor, Employment, Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Patent Trial & Appeal Board Proceedings.International Trade Commission – Section 337 Litigation.Brand Enforcement / Trademark Litigation.Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG).Transactions - Latin America & Caribbean.Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs).International Trade, CFIUS, Customs, Export Controls & Sanctions.Financial Services Regulatory/Compliance.European Competition & Regulatory Advice.Asia Competition & Antitrust Counseling.The court similarly found these arguments about competition between the parties unpersuasive, noting there was no evidence in the record that F5 actually considered Radware a competitor, and that F5 did not track any company’s patents, let alone Radware’s patents or patent applications. Radware also pointed to circumstantial evidence suggesting that Radware and F5 were competitors and thus F5 must have been aware of the patent-in-suit. Radware’s only direct evidence of willful infringement was that F5’s in-house counsel received a Notice of Allowance on an F5 patent that listed the patent-in-suit in the “References Cited.” Citing to the holding in Halo that only “‘intentional or knowing’ infringement may warrant enhanced damages,” the district court held the direct evidence failed to sufficiently support any willfulness claim, particularly because there is no duty for a party to review the patents listed in a PTO notice.

Jmol close of evidence