-DN Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. Lenovo International et al, No. 1:2005cv00064 - Document 1952 (D. Utah 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and Orderdenying 1834 Asustek Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in Favor of the Asustek Defendants of No Infringement of US Patent No. 5,983,002. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 09/26/2011. (tls)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., a Utah Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING ASUSTEK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FAVOR OF THE ASUSTEK DEFENDANTS OF NO INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,983,002 vs. SONY ELECTRONICS INC., et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-64 TS Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. ( ASUSTeK ) and ASUS Computer International s (collectively, Defendants) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion. I. BACKGROUND This matter proceeded to a jury trial in September and October 2010. At the conclusion of that trial, the jury found that Defendants infringed one of Plaintiff s patents and that Plaintiff 1 was entitled to damages. Defendants now renew their previously denied Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. II. DISCUSSION Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, a court should render judgment as a matter of law when a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue. 1 A party which has made a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) prior to a jury verdict may renew that motion under Rule 50(b) after judgment is rendered. In [entertaining a motion for judgment as a matter of law], the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. 2 Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge. 3 The Tenth Circuit has made it clear that judgment as a matter of law is to be cautiously and sparingly granted, 4 and is only appropriate when there is no way to legally justify a jury verdict. Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate only [i]f there is no legally sufficient 1 Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). 2 Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554-555 (1990). 3 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 4 Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 547 (10th Cir. 1996). 2 evidentiary basis . . . with respect to a claim or defense . . . under the controlling law, 5 or if the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences which may support the opposing party s position. 6 Judgment as a matter of law is improper unless the evidence so overwhelmingly favors the moving party as to permit no other rational conclusion. 7 Having reviewed the evidence in this case, as well as the parties arguments, the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the jury s verdict. Therefore, the Court will deny Defendants Motion. III. CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that ASUSTeK Defendants Motion for Judgment as Matter of Law (Docket No. 1834) is DENIED. DATED September 26, 2011. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 5 Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 172 F.3d 1232, 1241 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 50). 6 Finley v. United States, 82 F.3d 966, 968 (10th Cir. 1996). 7 Shaw v. AAA Eng g & Drafting, 213 F.3d 519, 529 (10th Cir. 2000). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.