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 INVALIDITY OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,242,028 BASED ON LACK OF WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION
`
`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 Judgement as a
`Matter of Law Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No.
`7,242,028 (“the ‘028 Patent”) Based on Lack of Written
`Description (Dkt. No. 352).
`In the first instance, Cree’s Motion must be denied
`because it is untimely. Cree did not file the Motion within
`28 days of the jury being discharged as required by Federal
`
`1
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 16
`
`

`

`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. 352 (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, Cree’s Motion must be denied because a
`reasonable jury could conclude based on the evidence
`presented at trial that the ‘028 Patent has adequate written
`description. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)-(b). Two of OptoLum’s
`expert witnesses testified that, from the perspective of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”), the ‘028
`Patent’s specification discloses solid state light sources
`(“SSLSs”) other than light emitting diodes (“LEDs”) as
`disclosed in OptoLum’s U.S. Patent No. 6,831,303 (“the ‘303
`Patent”). A jury could reasonably credit this testimony over
`the opposing testimony of Cree’s expert Dr. Eric
`Bretschneider, whose credibility was seriously damaged during
`trial.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`“Rule 50(b) permits a party to renew its Rule 50(a)
`motion post-trial, asserting the same grounds initially
`
`2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 16
`
`

`

`raised in the prior motion.” Lusk v. Virginia Panel Corp.
`2014 WL 3900325, at *3 (W.D. Va. Aug. 11, 2014). “[I]f the
`motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict,” it
`must be filed “no later than 28 days after the jury was
`discharged.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
`“[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,
`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)). 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).
`“The specification shall contain a written description
`of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and
`
`3
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 16
`
`

`

`using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use
`the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). An issued patent is presumed
`valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282(a). Where a defendant challenges
`whether a patent meets the written description requirement of
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a), “[t]o overcome the presumption of validity
`of patents, the accused must show that the claims lack a
`written description by clear and convincing evidence.” Hynix
`Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.
`Cir. 2011).
`“The test under the written description requirement is
`‘whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
`reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the
`inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
`the filing date.’” Hynix Semiconductor, 645 F.3d at 1351
`(quoting Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
`1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). To meet this
`requirement, “[a]n applicant is not required to describe in
`the specification every conceivable and possible future
`embodiment of his invention.” Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE,
`Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Rexnord
`
`4
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 16
`
`

`

`Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`Further, “[a] patent need not teach, and preferably omits,
`what is well known in the art.” Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Spectra–
`Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1534 (Fed.
`Cir. 1987)).
`“[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written
`description requirement varies depending on the nature and
`scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability
`of the relevant technology.” In re Global IP Holdings LLC,
`927 F.3d 1373, 1777 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d
`at 1351). Thus, where it would be predictable to replace an
`element explicitly disclosed in a specification, the
`alternate may be sufficiently disclosed for purposes of § 112
`even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the patent. See id.
`at 1377-78 (vacating decision that held written description
`that did not explicitly mention use of “general plastics”
`inadequate, where court had failed to analyze predictability
`
`5
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 16
`
`

`

`of using general plastics in lieu of the explicitly disclosed
`thermoplastics).
`Further, “the criticality or importance of [an] expressly
`disclosed species [to the invention] may be relevant to
`whether an inventor had possession of a claimed genus.” Id.
`at 1378. Thus, where an original patent’s claims are
`“broadened merely [to] omit an unnecessary limitation that
`had restricted one element of the invention,” the original
`patent’s specification may adequately describe the newly
`claimed invention. See id. For example, in In re Peters, 723
`F.2d 891, 893 (Fed. Cir. 1983), an original patent claimed,
`inter alia, a metal tip having a tapered shape; the invention
`was broadened through a subsequent patent to claim both
`tapered and non-tapered tips; and the original patent’s
`specification was found to provide adequate written
`description of the broader invention despite not mentioning
`a non-tapered tip, because the tip shape was “non-critical.”
`See id. at 893 (“[O]ne skilled in the art would readily
`understand that in practicing the invention it is unimportant
`whether the tips are tapered . . . .”); see In re Global IP
`Holdings LLC, 927 F.3d at 1377 (discussing In re Peters).
`
`6
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 16
`
`

`

`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Cree’s Motion Must Be Denied as Untimely
`As an initial matter, this Court must deny Cree’s Rule
`50(b) 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
`jury – invalidity for lack of written description. See Martek
`Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1369
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Whether the written description
`requirement is met is a question of fact.”).1 The issue was
`not decided by verdict. See Dkt. No. 342.2 However, Cree
`failed to file its Motion within 28 days of the jury being
`
`1 Indeed, the parties submitted the issue to the jury here.
`See Dkt. No. 289 at 58-60; Dkt. No. 291-2 at 60-63. 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.
`2 In fact, as noted by Cree, the Court required the jury to
`amend the verdict so as not to reach issues of invalidity
`such as written description. Nov. 9, 2021 Tr. at 142:12-23;
`Dkt. No. 353 at 3-4.
`7
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 16
`
`

`

`discharged. See Dkt. Entry 11/09/2021 (“Jury excused.”); Dkt.
`No. 352. 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. 353 at 4 n.1. However, no extension was effected
`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).”); 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 court had “no
`authority to extend the filing period” for post-trial motion,
`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
`
`8
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 16
`
`

`

`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
`untimely . . . .”).
`Accordingly, Cree’s Motion must be denied as untimely.
`B.
`Cree’s Motion Must Be Denied Because a Reasonable
`Jury Could Find that the ‘028 Patent Contains a
`Sufficient Written Description
`To the extent Cree’s Motion is not denied as untimely in
`the first instance, it should also be denied because a
`reasonable jury could find from the evidence presented at
`
`9
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 9 of 16
`
`

`

`trial that the specification of the ‘028 Patent describes
`SSLSs other than an LED.
`Here, OptoLum presented sufficient evidence for a jury
`to find that the ‘028 Patent has an adequate written
`description of the invention. OptoLum’s expert witness Brent
`York testified that the claims of ‘028 Patent cover SSLSs
`other than LEDs, such as laser diodes, Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at
`122:4-11, and the ‘028 Patent’s specification teaches
`“packaged semiconductor devices that are placed in a way where
`it can create a distribution of light, and that the heat
`that’s generated by these is conducted and then allowed to
`convect away from surfaces.” See Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at 123:7-
`13. The “specific example cited in [the specification] is
`using the LEDs” as the packaged semiconductor device; however,
`as a person of ordinary skill in the art, he understood that
`the invention was not limited to just the use of LEDs. See
`Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at 123:14-124:4. That is because it was known
`in the art that different types of packages could be used to
`fulfill the same purpose. See Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at 124:5-125:1
`(“[A] person of skill in the art knew that packages contained
`– could contain different devices. It was being openly
`
`10
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 10 of 16
`
`

`

`discussed in our industry.”); see also Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at
`125:13-19 (“It’s very clear to me in the reading of it [the
`specification of the ‘028 Patent] what was intended. These
`are concentrated sources of heat and light that create a
`lighting distribution and are cooled.”).
`In other words, it was well known and entirely
`predictable to a POSA that other packaged semiconductor
`devices would function the same as, and could be used in lieu
`of, the packaged semiconductor device explicitly mentioned in
`the ‘028 Patent’s specification. See Epistar Corp., 566 F.3d
`at 1336 (“A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what
`is well known in the art.”); In re Global IP Holdings LLC,
`927 F.3d at 1377 (“[T]he predictability of substituting
`generic
`plastics
`for
`[explicitly
`mentioned]
`thermoplastics . . . is relevant to the written description
`inquiry.”).
`Mr. York further testified that the distinction between
`LEDs and other types of SSLSs is not critical to the overall
`invention:
`The invention and the practice of the invention
`doesn’t care what chip is inside the package. It
`only cares that it’s producing light and it has heat
`that needs to be taken away. And so if the package
`11
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 11 of 16
`
`

`

`contains a different structure or different
`componentry, it would still operate nonetheless.
`Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at 123:3-6; see also Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at
`122:4-123:2 (Mr. York testifying that a laser diode was known
`to serve the same purpose as an LED in producing white light
`if was used in conjunction with a phosphor). Accordingly,
`providing
`further
`examples
`of
`applicable
`packaged
`semiconductor devices was not necessary. See In re Global IP
`Holdings LLC, 927 F.3d at 1778 (“the criticality or importance
`of [an] expressly disclosed species may be relevant”).
`Logically, an interchangeable aspect of an invention that a
`POSA would readily understand and thus pay little attention
`to is of little consequence to the written description of an
`invention.
`Accordingly, in the opinion of Mr. York, who is a POSA,
`there is adequate written description of SSLSs other than
`LEDs in the ‘028 Patent. See Nov. 8, 2021 Tr. at 123:3-6;
`125:13-19. Cree wholly ignores Mr. York’s testimony on these
`issues in its Motion. See Dkt. 353 at 9 n.2 (claiming that
`the “evidence is devoid of any basis for” a sufficient written
`description while citing only testimony of Dr. Steigerwald).
`
`12
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 12 of 16
`
`

`

`Furthermore, a jury would be free to credit the testimony
`of Mr. York over the testimony of Cree’s technical expert
`witness Dr. Eric Bretschneider and find that the ‘028 Patent
`has adequate written description, especially in light of Dr.
`Bretshneider’s damaged credibility. See, e.g., Nov. 5, 2021
`Tr. at 117:19-121:7 (Dr. Bretschneider providing inconsistent
`testimony on whether prior art reference was specifically
`designed to convect heat such that it could render patents-
`in-suit obvious). See, e.g., EcoServices, LLC v. Certified
`Aviation Servs., LLC, No. CV 16-01824-RSWL-SPX, 2019 WL
`11583148, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2019), aff'd, 830 F. App'x
`634 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (denying Rule 50(b) motion for lack of
`adequate written description because jury could credit
`plaintiff’s expert’s testimony over defendant’s); In re
`Biogen '755 Pat. Litig., 335 F. Supp. 3d 688, 744 (D.N.J.
`2018), rev'd on other grounds Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono,
`Inc., 976 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (denying Rule 50(b)
`motion for lack of adequate written description because
`“faced with competing expert testimony, the jury was free to
`disbelieve Defendants' experts and credit Biogen's experts”);
`Ironworks Pats., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 3d 513, 522
`
`13
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 13 of 16
`
`

`

`(D. Del. 2017) (denying Rule 50(b) motion for lack of adequate
`written description because jury was free to “credit[] the
`testimony of Dr. Meldal over that of Dr. Balakrishnan”).
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, OptoLum respectfully requests
`that the Court deny Cree’s Rule 50(b) Motion for lack of
`adequate written description.
`
`14
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 Filed 12/30/21 Page 14 of 16
`
`

`

`Dated: December 30, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Leah R. McCoy
`Leigh J. Martinson
`Leah R. McCoy
`Alexander T. Hornat
`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
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`OptoLum, Inc.
`
`15
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 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 2,693 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
`
`16
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 361 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