throbber
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`OptoLum, Inc.,
`Plaintiff,
`vs.
`Cree, Inc.,
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-
`00687
`
`PLAINTIFF OPTOLUM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CREE,
`INC.’S MOTION UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 50(b)
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW REGARDING THE ENTIRE MARKET
`VALUE RULE
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff OptoLum, Inc., (“OptoLum”) hereby submits this
`Opposition to Defendant Cree Inc.’s (“Cree”) Motion under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) for a Renewed Judgment
`as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”) regarding the Entire Market Value
`Rule (“Motion”) (Dkt. No. 351).
`In the first instance, the jury’s verdict of non-
`infringement moots Cree’s Motion and deprives the Court of
`jurisdiction over the question of damages. Any ruling
`regarding damages would be effectively an impermissible
`advisory opinion. “[F]ederal courts have never been
`empowered to issue advisory opinions.” F.C.C. v. Pacifica
`1
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 16
`
`

`

`Found., 438 U.S. 726, 735 (1978); see Herb v. Pitcairn, 324
`U.S. 117, 126 (1945); Westfield Ins. Co. v. Sistersville Tank
`Works, Inc., 484 F. Supp. 3d (N.D. W.Va. 2020) (finding that
`a request for a ruling on a speculative future damages claim
`was an impermissible advisory opinion). Therefore, the Court
`should decline to rule on Cree’s Motion.1
`Additionally, Cree’s Motion should be denied because it
`is untimely. Cree did not file this Motion within 28 days of
`the jury being discharged as required by Federal Rule 50(b)—
`a deadline which may not be extended. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`50(b); Dkt. Entry 11/09/2021 (“Jury excused.”); Dkt. No. 351
`(motion filed 12/09/2021); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2)
`(“A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b)
`. . . .”).
`Moreover, the Court should deny Cree’s Motion because
`OptoLum provided more than a legally sufficient evidentiary
`basis for a reasonable jury to find that the Entire Market
`Value Rule (“EMVR”) applies in this case. Specifically, Mr.
`York’s testimony established a nexus between OptoLum’s
`
`1 Because Cree’s Motion apparently assumes that there has
`been no verdict regarding infringement, OptoLum’s
`substantive arguments below follow suit.
`2
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 16
`
`

`

`patented technology and Cree’s filament tower bulbs. Further,
`Mr. Scally, relying in part on Mr. York’s qualified,
`unchallenged, and admissible expert testimony, also testified
`that the patent-related features created the basis for
`consumer demand for Cree’s filament tower bulbs.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`“Rule 50(b) permits a party to renew its Rule 50(a)
`motion post-trial, asserting the same grounds initially
`raised in the prior motion.” Lusk v. Virginia Panel Corp.
`2014 WL 3900325, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 11, 2014). A 50(b)
`motion “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, that is,
`assesses whether the claim should succeed or fail because the
`evidence developed at trial was insufficient as a matter of
`law to sustain the claim.” Belk v. Meyer Corp. U.S., 679 F.3d
`146, 155 (4th Cir. 2012).
`“[J]udgment as a matter of law [pursuant to Rule 50(b)]
`may be granted only if, viewing the evidence in a light most
`favorable to the non-moving party (and in support of the
`jury's verdict) and drawing every legitimate inference in
`that party's favor, the only conclusion a reasonable jury
`could have reached is one in favor of the moving party.”
`Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 3 F.4th 605,
`3
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 16
`
`

`

`610 (4th Cir. 2021)(quoting Int'l Ground Transp. v. Mayor &
`City Council of Ocean City, MD, 475 F.3d 214, 218–19 (4th Cir.
`2007)).
`“[T]he Fourth Circuit has stated that ‘a Rule 50(b)
`motion for judgment as a matter of law follows the same
`standard as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.’ A court
`‘must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
`nonmovant, and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor
`without weighing the evidence or assessing the witnesses'
`credibility.’” Volumetrics Med. Imaging, Inc. v. ATL
`Ultrasound, Inc., 2003 WL 21650004, at *5 (M.D.N.C. July 10,
`2003) (quoting Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc.,
`290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002) and denying defendant’s
`renewed motion for JMOL where substantial evidence supported
`all aspects of plaintiff’s claims).
`“Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate where a
`plaintiff has been fully heard on an issue but has failed to
`produce sufficient evidence for a jury to find for the party.”
`Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, 201 F. Supp. 3d 750, 753–54
`(M.D.N.C. 2016) (denying defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL
`where plaintiff provided sufficient evidence during trial for
`a reasonable jury to find in its favor); Russell v. Absolute
`4
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 16
`
`

`

`Collection Servs., Inc., 2012 WL 13034846, at *3 (M.D.N.C.
`Sept. 28, 2012) (Osteen, Jr, J.) (denying defendant’s motion
`for JMOL where plaintiff provided a “legally sufficient
`evidentiary basis for a jury to find for the plaintiff”).
`“For the entire market value rule to apply, the patentee
`must prove that the patent-related feature is the basis for
`customer demand.” Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580
`F.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
`omitted). “The entire market value rule allows for the
`recovery of damages based on the value of an entire apparatus
`containing several features, when the feature patented
`constitutes the basis for customer demand.” LaserDynamics,
`Inc. v. Quanta Comp., Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Cree’s Motion Must Be Denied As Untimely
`As an initial matter, this Court must deny Cree’s Motion
`because it was untimely. Rule 50(b) requires a motion on a
`jury issue which was not decided by a verdict to be filed
`within 28 days of the jury being discharged. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`50(b). Here, Cree’s Motion addresses an issue of fact for the
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`5
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 16
`
`

`

`jury—the applicability of the Entire Market Value Rule.2 The
`issue, however, was not decided by the jury’s verdict. See
`e.g., Dkt. No. 342 at 6. Cree nevertheless failed to file
`this Motion within 28 days of the jury being discharged. See
`Dkt. Entry 11/09/2021 (“Jury excused.”); Dkt. No. 351.
`Accordingly, the Motion must be denied.
`Cree suggests that its Motion is timely because the Court
`purported to extend the deadline for Rule 50(b) motions. See
`Dkt. No. 351 at 8 n.1. No extension was effected however
`because, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(2), Rule 50(b) deadlines may
`not be extended. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) (“A court must
`not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b),
`59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b).”); see also Guerrero v. Deane,
`548 F. App’x 86 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“A court may
`not extend the time to act under Rule 50(b) . . . .” (internal
`quotation marks omitted)); Panhorst v. United States, 241
`F.3d 367, 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding that district
`
`2 Indeed, the parties submitted the issue to the jury here.
`See Dkt. No. 289 at 69-71; Dkt. No. 291 at 73-74. Moreover,
`Cree apparently concedes that the deadline is triggered by
`the jury’s discharge, as opposed to a judgment, as Cree
`already filed its motion despite no judgment having been
`entered.
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`6
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 16
`
`

`

`court had “no authority to extend the filing period” for post-
`trial motions, and that “a party cannot reasonably rely on a
`district court’s improper extension of time . . . that, as a
`plain reading of the rules would show, is beyond the court’s
`authority”); see also Dill v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 525
`F.3d 612, 616 (8th Cir. 2008) (“General American's Rule 50(b)
`motion was . . . filed within the extended time frame
`purportedly granted by the district court. However, the
`district court lacked authority to extend the time
`period . . . .”); Weissman v. Dawn Joy Fashions, Inc., 214
`F.3d 224, 231–32 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[T]he District Court lacked
`the power to extend Dawn Joy's time to file its post-trial
`motion . . . . [T]he motion was untimely, thereby ‘divest[ing]
`the [D]istrict [C]ourt of power to modify the trial verdict.’”
`(citation omitted)); e2Interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network,
`Inc., No. 09-CV-629-SLC, 2012 WL 13000463, at *2 (W.D. Wis.
`Oct. 22, 2012) (“[T]he law is clear; this court does not have
`the authority to extend the 28-day deadline for filing Rule
`50(b) and Rule 59 motions and Blackhawk cannot rely on my
`text only order stating otherwise. Therefore, I have no choice
`but to find that Blackhawk’s Rule 50 and 59 motions were
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`7
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 16
`
`

`

`untimely . . . .”). Accordingly, Cree’s untimely Motion
`should be denied.
`B.
`Cree’s Motion Must Be Denied Because OptoLum
`Provided A Legally Sufficient Evidentiary Basis For
`A Reasonable Jury To Find That The Entire Market
`Value Rule Applies
`In addition, Cree’s Motion must be denied because,
`contrary to Cree’s assertions, OptoLum provided more than
`sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the
`EMVR applies.
`Cree’s primary argument is that the only evidence that
`OptoLum “presented to support its assertion that the entire
`market value rule applies is William Scally’s testimony that
`the allegedly claimed features in the accused bulbs enabled
`the aspects of the bulbs that drove consumer demand for the
`bulbs. That testimony is based entirely on the unsupported
`and conclusory opinion of another expert, Brent York.” Dkt.
`No. 351 at 7. Cree misstates both Mr. Scally’s and Mr. York’s
`testimony. Mr. Scally relied upon Mr. York’s opinion
`regarding the nexus between the claimed invention and the
`market-facing benefits desired by consumers, which is
`properly within the province of a technical expert, and he
`provided his own reasoned opinion regarding the features that
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`8
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 16
`
`

`

`drove demand for the accused products, supported by extensive
`documentary evidence.
`In the first instance, Cree’s attempt to challenge Mr.
`Scally’s reliance on Mr. York’s testimony at this stage in
`the case is misplaced. There is no dispute that the Court
`qualified Mr. York as OptoLum’s technical expert or that he
`provided admissible and well-reasoned testimony to the jury.
`In fact, the Court required that Mr. York testify during
`OptoLum’s case in chief in order to support Mr. Scally’s
`testimony. Therefore, Mr. Scally’s reliance on Mr. York was
`well within the bounds of a reasoned expert opinion.
`Furthermore, the testimony provided by Mr. York provided
`more than sufficient evidence for a jury to find a nexus
`between the Asserted Patents and the features that create
`consumer demand for the products. For example, Mr. York
`testified that the Cree filament tower, which embodies the
`claimed invention, enables
`essentially a maximization of the cooling that you
`get without having to use anything active like a fan.
`So it allows you to get that heat not only
`circulating inside, but also outside. And so it then
`enables those devices to last a long time. That’s
`very important. The other thing is that because it
`is so effective, you can cluster your LED’s at the
`top to create that look like a filament. You can put
`your LED’s close together. If you looked at some of
`9
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 9 of 16
`
`

`

`the other freak show examples, you’ll notice that
`the LEDs were placed all over the place. They
`couldn’t be put close together, which didn’t give
`the look and feel that a customer would want.
`Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 167:9-20. Mr. York testified that the
`filament tower “gives you also the ability to have the
`omnidirectional light because that’s all clustered around.”
`Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 168:8-9. Mr. York further testified:
`[B]ecause it’s a single thermal body, if you will,
`that allows you to put everything together around
`it as kind of the core, it enables you to have cost
`savings because again you don’t need exotic
`materials, you can relax some of your requirements.
`So it’s a big enabler, and it allows you to
`accelerate your product development path much faster
`than your competition and what was available at the
`time.
`Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 168:16-23. Through this testimony, Mr.
`York explained how the patented technology enabled the
`features that drove market demand.
`Based on his conversations with Mr. York, 3 and in
`conjunction with his own analysis, Mr. Scally then opined
`that
`the market-facing benefits that are established by
`the novel elements of the patented claim allow for
`
`3 With respect to conversing with Mr. Scally, Mr. York
`testified: “Yes, in general, he was asking me, you know,
`about the advantages, and I spoke to him basically as an
`engineer. What do I see as advantages and how were those
`advantages going to be enabling you to move to market and
`10
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 10 of 16
`
`

`

`certain things of the Cree filament tower bulb.
`Those being thermal management, omnidirectional
`light, the allowance of the small packaging, the
`small-form factor and cost savings associated with
`the use of the technology. So those four market-
`facing benefits that drive demand for the bulb,
`those are--the claims of the asserted patents.
`Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 48:2-10.
`Mr. Scally also relied on numerous evidentiary sources
`to support his opinion that the patent-related features
`created the basis for commercial demand and success for Cree’s
`filament tower bulbs. Mr. Scally read extensively from these
`sources and explained how they supported his opinion.
` Harvard Business School Publication: “[O]ur engineers
`came up with a very elegant solution to the design
`issues inherent with LED bulbs in compact form, the
`filament tower produced the light dispersion we wanted
`without any problematic heat build up. We then encased
`the whole thing in a glass bulb.” Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at
`76:17-21.
` Cree Advertisement entitled, The LED Bulb Backgrounder:
`“Cree LED filament tower technology, the innovation
`inside that powers our omnidirectional, all around
`light.” Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 77:3-4.4
` Statement made by Cree’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr.
`Chuck Swoboda: “[T]he Cree LED lightbulb was designed
`to offer consumers a no compromise experience at a
`compelling prize [sic]. Innovative bulb is illuminated
`by Cree filament tower technology providing a compact
`
`to move to market faster and more effectively.” Nov. 2,
`2021 Tr. at 169:1-6.
`4 The Court admitted PTX 401 into evidence. Nov. 2, 2021 Tr.
`at 77:9.
`11
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 11 of 16
`
`

`

`optically balanced light source with a real glass bulb
`to deliver consumers the warm light they love and want.”
`Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 77:14-19.5
` Cree Document entitled, The Biggest Thing Since the
`Light Bulb: “Cree LED filament tower emits light in a
`way similar to the incandescent filament to create the
`same nuance and visual texture.” Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at
`78:6-7.6
` Power Electronics article entitled, Innovative
`Engineering Design Lights Up LED Bulbs: “[T]he key
`innovation was the way they packaged LEDs in a way
`that distributed the light, provided thermal majority,
`and was cost effective. Cree’s approach called the
`filament tower is--and then it goes on to state that
`in addition, the tower provides thermal management to
`dissipate heat from the LEDs enhance reliability and
`useful lifetime.” Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 79:11-17.7
` Cree Message Board: “[T]he Cree LED bulb delivers a
`beautiful, warm incandescent light for residential
`living spaces. Cree LED filament tower technology
`represents a break-through in LED bulb design. It
`provides an optically centered and balance[d] light
`source with a real glass bulb nearly indistinguishable
`from a traditional incandescent filament.” Nov. 2,
`2021 Tr. at 83:25–84:1-6.8
`With respect to the relationship between the thermal
`management technology of the Asserted Patents and the
`
`5 The Court admitted PTX 403 into evidence. Nov. 2, 2021 Tr.
`at 77:22.
`6 The Court admitted PTX 404 into evidence. Nov. 2, 2021 Tr.
`at 77:14.
`7 The Court admitted PTX 763 into evidence. Nov. 2, 2021 Tr.
`at 78:25.
`8 The Court admitted PTX 116 into evidence. Nov. 2, 2021 Tr.
`at 84:13.
`12
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 12 of 16
`
`

`

`features driving consumer demand, Mr. Scally, relying on Mr.
`York’s expertise, opined that it
`allows the bulb to operate efficiently, it allows
`for long evident [sic] of the bulb, it allows for
`the bulb to be able to do all the things that it was
`designed to do, which is essentially to last for a
`longer period of time, function longer, save energy,
`and also create an opportunity for lower lifetime
`cost through efficiencies.
`Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 80:6-12.
`Mr. Scally further testified that “the market facing
`benefit of an existing lightbulb drives demand for the product.
`So the filament tower technology is the enabling technology
`inside that allows for that form, which drives demand for the
`product.” Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 82:24-25-83:1-3.
`Ultimately, Mr. Scally opined that
`the filament tower technology is the actual
`technology inside the infringing lightbulb that
`enables all of the factors that drive demand.
`Omnidirectional light, thermal management, form
`factor, all of that is coming from the filament
`tower technology, and that allowed Cree at that
`point in time to enter the marketplace earlier than
`its competitors and to enjoy a substantial benefit
`within the marketplace to sell the accused products.
`Nov. 2, 2021 Tr. at 87:8-15.
`Therefore, through the technical testimony of Mr. York
`and the significant documentary evidence and opinion
`testimony supplied by Mr. Scally, OptoLum provided
`13
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 13 of 16
`
`

`

`significantly more than a legally sufficient basis for a jury
`to find that the patent-related features created a basis for
`commercial demand and success for Cree’s filament tower bulbs.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, OptoLum respectfully requests
`that Cree’s untimely Motion under Federal Rule Of Civil
`Procedure 50(b) For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Regarding The
`Entire Market Value Rule be DENIED.
`
`Dated: December 30, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Leah R. McCoy
`Leigh J. Martinson
`Leah R. McCoy
`Gregory A. Hall
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`265 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 449-6593
`Facsimile: (617) 607-9200
`Email: lmccoy@mccarter.com
`
`/s/ Jacob S. Wharton
`Jacob S. Wharton
`NC State Bar No. 37421
`WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
`One West 4th Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`Telephone: (336) 747-6609
`Facsimile: (336) 726-6985
`Email: jacob.wharton@wbd-
`us.com
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`14
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 14 of 16
`
`

`

`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`OptoLum, Inc.
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`15
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 15 of 16
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATION UNDER L.R. 7.3(D)
`Under the provisions of L.R. 7.3(d), I certify that the
`forgoing Memorandum is 2990 words, less than the 11,000
`permitted by the Scheduling Order in place in this matter.
`
`Dated: December 30, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:/s/ Leah R. McCoy
`Leah R. McCoy
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`265 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 449-6593
`Facsimile: (617) 607-9200
`
`ME1 38671981v.2
`
`16
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 360 Filed 12/30/21 Page 16 of 16
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket