![]() ![]() “PC Workstation” and “POS terminal”: The court also found there was enough evidence to support the jury’s finding as to the “PC Workstation” limitation in the claims.Limelight Networks ( Akamai V), the court found that NCR exercised control over merchants through two mechanisms: (1) contractual requirements and (2) conditioning a benefit to merchants according to the merchants’ performance of claim elements. Guided by Centillion as well as the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Akamai Technologies v. The court then analyzed whether the actions of merchants could be attributed to NCR. The court, guided by the facts in Centillion and in a similar district court case, found that NCR had not put the NCR Silver system “into service.” In Centillion, the Federal Circuit held that to use a system for infringement purposes, the accused infringer must put the system “into service,” controlling the system as a whole and benefiting from it. “Internet connection,” “network,” and “network access”: The court first started by analyzing whether NCR “used” the NCR Silver system in the way contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Centillion Data Systems v.NCR argued that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s infringement findings related to several claim limitations. (2) Substantial evidence supported the jury’s infringement findings of the asserted patents. It noted that (1) the instruction, read as a whole, instructed the jury properly to look at each claim and (2) if the instruction were in error, NCR’s proposed instruction did not clarify the error. CoC countered by pointing to the immediately preceding instruction language that CoC claimed provided the clarity the jury needed.Īpplying Fifth Circuit law, the court did not find NCR’s argument persuasive. By not clarifying the burden, NCR argued, the jury instruction conflated use by the end user with use by NCR and improperly allowed the jury to find infringement. NCR contended that the jury instruction did not properly clarify CoC’s burden to show that NCR controlled and benefited from each element of the claimed system as well as the system as a whole. ![]() 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |