IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`
`)
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`Civil Action No.
`)
`1:17-cv-00687
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`DEFENDANT CREE, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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
`
`v.
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`
`)
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`Civil Action No.
`)
`1:17-cv-00687
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`DEFENDANT CREE, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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
`
`v.
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`Defendant Cree Inc. (“Cree”) files its reply in support
`of its 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 (“the ‘028 patent”) Based On Lack
`Of Written Description.
`The substantive merits of the underlying motion have
`been briefed extensively to the Court. Plaintiff OptoLum,
`Inc. (“OptoLum”)’s opposition to the present motion does
`not raise new substantive responsive arguments that this
`Court has not already been presented with. To avoid
`burdening the Court with unnecessary repetition, Cree rests
`its substantive position on the merits of its motion and
`prior briefs to this Court on the issue.
`Procedurally, OptoLum contends that Cree’s motion
`should be denied as untimely because Cree did not file its
`Rule 50(b) motion within 28 days of the jury being
`discharged. Dkt. 361 at 1. OptoLum’s argument fails for
`several reasons.
`First, OptoLum has waived its timeliness challenge.
`Before any JMOLs were filed, OptoLum’s counsel asked
`counsel for Cree to confirm that “the parties will have 28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`
`days from the entry of judgement to file all motions
`pursuant to Rule 50(b).” Ex. A (Email fr. OptoLum’s
`Counsel) at 2 (emphasis added). Cree agreed, pointing out
`that this Court had instructed the parties to “consider the
`deadline extended to allow 30 days.” Id. at 1. OptoLum
`responded, “concur[ring] that the effective deadline for
`all Rule 50(b) motions is 28 days after the entry of
`judgement.” Id.
`By failing to object when this Court granted a 30-day
`extension, and by agreeing to the above deadline for all
`Rule 50(b) motions, OptoLum waived any argument that the
`Court could not extend the deadline for Rule 50(b) motions
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2). See Legg v.
`Ulster Cty., 820 F.3d 67, 78–79 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding
`Rule 6(b) is subject “to waiver or equitable exception” and
`finding that any timeliness objection had been waived);
`Mobley v. C.I.A., 806 F.3d 568, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
`(holding that “[t]he timing rules at issue here—Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) and 59(e) and Federal Rule
`of Appellate Procedure (‘FRAP’) 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)—are claim-
`processing rules” that are “subject to waiver and
`forfeiture”); see also Escribano v. Travis Cty., Texas, 947
`2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`
`F.3d 265, 271–72 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Rule 50(b) is also a
`claim-processing requirement. We therefore hold that Rule
`50 does not impose a jurisdictional deadline.”).
`Accordingly, the operating deadline for this motion is 28
`days from the entry of judgment. Because no such judgment
`has been entered, Cree’s motion is well within the deadline
`of Rule 50(b) and the parties’ stipulation.
`Furthermore, OptoLum misstates the applicable deadline
`for Cree’s present motion. Rule 50(b) provides that “[n]o
`later than 28 days after the entry of judgment — or if the
`motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no
`later than 28 days after the jury was discharged — the
`movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter
`of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). Here, the issue of
`invalidity — in particular, the issue of invalidity for
`lack of written description concerning the ‘028 patent —
`was indeed decided by a jury verdict. See Verdict Form
`(Dkt. 342) at 3-5. While the original verdict form was
`later amended by the jury, such amendment does not change
`the fact that the jury’s initial verdict did decide the
`issue of invalidity. Therefore, the controlling deadline
`for Rule 50(b) JMOLs regarding invalidity (such as written
`3
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`
`description and obviousness) is 28 days after the entry of
`judgment, not 28 days after the jury was discharged as
`OptoLum incorrectly suggests.
`Finally, and most importantly, this Court need not
`decide any of the issues raised by all of the pending
`JMOLs, including whether they are timely, because all of
`the pending JMOLs are moot. Cree’s pending motions concern
`invalidity and damages calculations, and OptoLum’s motion
`concerns validity. Cree raised invalidity as an
`affirmative defense to any alleged infringement. Because
`the jury found that the asserted patents were not
`infringed, this Court need not reach any of the issues
`concerning invalidity or damages.
`“To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to
`decide a hypothetical case.” Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton
`Int’l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 94 (1993) (citation omitted); see
`also Fire King Int’l, LLC v. Tidel Eng’g, L.P., No. 3-07-
`CV0655-G, 2009 WL 10704423, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 16,
`2009), report and recommendation adopted, 613 F. Supp. 2d
`836 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (denying summary judgment of
`invalidity as moot, noting that where a court grants
`summary judgment of non-infringement any affirmative
`4
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`
`defenses become moot, and citing collection of cases).1 The
`jury found the patents were not infringed, and until that
`finding is disturbed, there is no need for the Court to
`entertain any challenges with respect to invalidity or
`damages. See PODS, Inc. v. Porta Stor, Inc., 484 F.3d
`1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding there is “no need to
`consider . . . arguments related to invalidity” because
`“finding of non-infringement moots any affirmative defense
`of invalidity”). All currently pending JMOLs are therefore
`moot.
`
`
`1 Despite requesting during trial that the jury amend
`the verdict form with respect to invalidity – even after
`the Court indicated it would not enter a final judgment of
`invalidity - OptoLum contends that its JMOL seeking a
`finding of validity is not moot. Dkt. 362 at 2-4. OptoLum
`argues that Cree’s reliance on Cardinal Chemical Co. v.
`Morton International, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 98 (1993) is
`misguided because the Court there held that invalidity is
`not moot. Even cursory review of that case shows OptoLum
`completely misses the point. The reason invalidity was not
`moot in Cardinal Chemical was because there was a
`declaratory judgment counterclaim seeking invalidity. Id.
`at 95-98; Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., 987
`F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Cardinal Chemical
`for proposition that non-infringement does not moot “a
`request for declaratory judgment of invalidity”). Here,
`there is no counterclaim for declaratory judgment of
`invalidity; instead, invalidity was merely raised as an
`affirmative defense.
`
`5
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, to the extent that OptoLum
`maintains that issues of damages and invalidity are not
`moot despite the jury’s finding of non-infringement, Cree
`respectfully requests that this Court grant its JMOL.
`
`Dated: January 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Blaney Harper
`Blaney Harper
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-2113
`Telephone: (202) 879-3939
`Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
`Email: bharper@jonesday.com
`
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`NC State Bar No. 45647
`SAGE PATENT GROUP
`4120 Main at North Hills St.
`Suite 230
`Raleigh, NC, 27609
`Telephone: 984-219-3358
`Facsimile: (984) 538-0416
`Email: psiddoway@sagepat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Cree, Inc.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No.
`1:17-cv-00687
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing complies with the
`limitations set forth in Local Rule 7.3(d) by not exceeding
`3,125 words, including the body of the brief, headings and
`footnotes, but excluding the caption, signature lines,
`certificate of service, and cover page or index.
`
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on January 12, 2022, I
`electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
`for the United States District Court for the Middle
`District of North Carolina using the CM/ECF Filing System,
`which will send notification via electronic means to all
`counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`NC State Bar No. 45647
`SAGE PATENT GROUP
`4120 Main at North Hills St.
`Suite 230
`Raleigh, NC, 27609
`Telephone: 984-219-3358
`Facsimile: (984) 538-0416
`Email: psiddoway@sagepat.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 364 Filed 01/12/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
