Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV LLC, No. 11 C 1768, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2017) (Lefkow, J.).
Judge Lefkow granted in part plaintiff Peerless’ renewed Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law as to invalidity and, in the alternative, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for a new trial in this patent dispute. The Court previously denied Peerless’ motion leading to a trial resulting in a jury finding that the patent was invalid.
Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
- Defendants’ introduction of website printouts to show public use was sufficient for the jury to determine that the relevant publications were prior art. While there is case law from at least 2000 holding that Internet evidence “is adequate for almost nothing” “the internet and its place in commerce” has changed since 2000.
- Defendants’ only evidence regarding its obviousness case was the introduction of the two physical prior art brackets. Defendants did not offer any supporting testimony, fact or expert. Without supporting evidence, Defendants failed to sufficiently establish that one of ordinary skill would have known to combine the brackets. The Court, therefore, granted judgment as a matter of law of non-obviousness.
- Defendants presented sufficient evidence of their anticipation to the jury. So, the anticipation finding was not reversed.
- Peerless’ best mode argument failed because the only evidence of best mode detail allegedly kept out of the patent application were related to manufacturing details which are not required to be disclosed as a best mode.