Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 436 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`14cv0111
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`
`
`
`DRONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARROT S.A., PARROT, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR A
`NEW TRIAL (DOC. NO. 431)
`
`I. Introduction
`
`
`
`The only issue presented during the recent three-day jury trial was the amount of
`
`damages, if any, due to Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringement. 1 After deliberating for
`
`approximately seven (7) hours over two (2) days, a jury determined that Plaintiff was due
`
`$3,783,950 for damages from January 31, 2012 through June 30, 2015 (“past damages”) and
`
`$4,016,050 for damages from July 1, 2015 through expiration of the patents (7,584,071 patent-
`
`March 2028; 8,106,748 patent-November 2030) (“future damages”), for a total of $7.8 million.2
`
`Doc. No. 371. Defendants now move this Court to enter judgment in their favor and against
`
`Plaintiff or, in the alternative, to order a new trial on damages. Doc. No. 431. In essence,
`
`Defendants contend that the jury’s verdict is unsupported by the evidence. Id. Defendants also
`
`
`1 The Parties are familiar with this case’s substantive and procedural posture, which has been set forth by the Court
`in several previous Opinions, including, the most recently filed Memorandum Opinion Re: Post-Trial Damages
`Motions. Doc. No. 403. Therefore, this Memorandum Order will solely focus on the facts necessary to determine
`whether Defendants’ present requested relief should be granted.
`
`2 The difference between the Parties’ requested damages was approximately $24 million. Ned Barnes testified for
`Plaintiff that total damages due for Defendants’ infringement was $24.8 million, while John Jarosz opined for
`Defendants that a lump sum payment of $680,000 was the highest appropriate sum. Doc. Nos. 187 and 344.
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 436 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 7
`
`argue that they were improperly inhibited from presenting certain evidence or conducting
`
`specific lines of inquiry, which entitles them to a new trial. Id. Plaintiff wholly opposes
`
`Defendants’ requested relief. Doc. No. 433. Defendants’ Motion is fully briefed and ready for
`
`disposition. Doc. Nos. 431-433, 435. Because Defendants have not met their heavy burden to
`
`demonstrate that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury’s verdict or that a new
`
`trial is warranted based upon the weight of evidence or an error made during trial, the present
`
`Motion will be denied.
`
`II. Standard of Review
`
`A. Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law-Fed.R.Civ.P. 50
`
`
`
`In ruling on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 50, a court must determine if there is a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis for
`
`a reasonable juror” to find for the non-moving party. Weisgram v. Marley Co, 528 U.S. 440, 454
`
`(2000). Although judgment as a matter of law should be granted sparingly, it will be granted “if
`
`the record is critically deficient of the minimum quantum of evidence from which the jury might
`
`reasonably afford relief.” Gomez v. Allegheny Health Services, Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir.
`
`1995) (citing Smollet v. Skayting Dev. Corp., 793 F.2d 547, 548 (3d Cir. 1986)). See also
`
`Eshelman v. Agere Systems, Inc., 554 F.3d 426, 433 (3d Cir. 2009).
`
`
`
`A motion for judgment as a matter of law should be “granted only if, viewing the
`
`evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and giving it the advantage of every fair
`
`and reasonable inference, there is insufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find”
`
`in favor of the non-moving party. Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1166 (3d
`
`Cir. 1993). See also Marra v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 436 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 7
`
`2007). In making this determination, the court may not reweigh the evidence or determine the
`
`credibility of the witnesses, and cannot substitute its version of the facts for that of the jury. Id.
`
`B. Motion for a New Trial-Fed.R.Civ.P.59
`
`
`
`A party is entitled to a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 in
`
`circumstances “where a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were to stand.” Olefins
`
`Trading, Inc. v. Han Yang Chem Corp., 9 F.3d 282, 289 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Fineman v.
`
`Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 980 F.2d 171, 211 (3d Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted)).
`
`The party may seek the relief of a new trial where the verdict is against the weight of evidence,
`
`the determined damages are excessive, or the trial court committed a substantial error in the
`
`instructions to the jury or the admission or rejection of evidence. Moussa v. Commonwealth of
`
`Pennsylvania Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 289 F.Supp.2d 639, 648 (W.D. Pa. 2003). See also
`
`Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940).
`
`
`
`When a party moves for a new trial on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of
`
`evidence, a court is limited in its discretion to grant a new trial only when the jury’s verdict
`
`would result in a miscarriage of justice. Williamson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344,
`
`1352 (3d Cir. 1991) (citing EEOC v. Delaware Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., 865 F.2d 1408,
`
`1413 (3d Cir. 1989). This limited discretion protects the jury system and “seeks to ensure that a
`
`district court does not substitute its ‘judgment of the facts and the credibility of witnesses for that
`
`of the jury.’” Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 980 F.2d 171, 211 (3d Cir. 1992)
`
`(quoting Lind v. Schenley Indus. Inc., 278 F.2d 79, 90 (3d Cir. 1960).
`
`III. Discussion
`
`As noted by the Court in its Memorandum Order re: Defendants’ Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment, this case presents a “combative and deeply entrenched dispute between the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 436 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 7
`
`Parties.” Doc. No. 228, pg. 3. This dispute is premised both on a breakdown in the litigation
`
`relationship between the Parties as well as competing documentary and testimonial evidence.
`
`The Court has previously recognized the existence of supporting evidence for Plaintiff’s
`
`damages claim, which precluded any decision by the Court on the proper amount of damages
`
`owed to Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringement. See Order of Court re: Parties’ Motions in
`
`Limine, Doc. No. 287, pg. 7 (“The Court incorporates its prior reasoning in denying this motion
`
`and reiterates that there is sufficient evidence to support Plaintiff’s damages claim based upon
`
`the current record.”). During trial, which focused solely on a determination of damages within
`
`the perimeters established by the Court in its entry of default judgment, the jury was “faced with
`
`such diametrically opposed evidence in terms of the Parties’ damages estimates” and
`
`“necessarily had to undertake numerous credibility determinations in arriving at a unanimous
`
`verdict.” Memorandum Order of Court re: Post-Trial Damages Motions, Doc. No. 403, pg. 7.
`
`Both Plaintiff and Defendants moved the Court to enter judgment in their favors
`
`following the conclusion of the respective presentation of evidence. Doc. Nos. 352-353.
`
`Defendants first moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law at the conclusion of Plaintiff’s case-in-
`
`chief. This oral motion was denied by the Court because the grounds raised were “issues for the
`
`jury to decide and weigh the evidence.” Doc. No. 358, pg. 241. At the conclusion of
`
`Defendants’ case, Plaintiff moved the Court to enter judgment in its favor and Defendants
`
`renewed their Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Doc. No. 357, pgs. 260-262. The Court
`
`denied both of these Motions based upon the finding that “the jury could reasonably return a
`
`verdict of damages in the amount requested by either side . . . [and] [a]s instructed by the Court,
`
`the jury could also return a verdict in an amount other than the amounts set forth by the Parties’
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 436 Filed 07/16/15 Page 5 of 7
`
`respective experts[] [and] [t]he evidence presented supports any of these three possible
`
`verdicts . . . .” Doc. No. 359.
`
`After extended deliberations, which included several questions for the Court, the jury
`
`returned a verdict in an amount between those requested by the Parties. Doc. No. 371. This
`
`verdict “was based upon the application of Georgia-Pacific factors and the presentation of
`
`testimony and documentary evidence, which allowed the lay jury members to employ the
`
`necessary tools to finally resolve the Parties’ business dispute.” Doc. No. 403, pg. 8.
`
`Defendants now contend that there is no legally sufficient basis for the jury’s verdict
`
`because: (1) Plaintiff did not demonstrate any direct infringement or a causal connection to prove
`
`a royalty base; (2) the royalty base included non-infringing products that were not included in
`
`the Complaint and products sold before the patents were issued; (3) Plaintiff did not satisfy the
`
`Entire Market Value Rule (“EMVR”); (4) the damages award is based on an insufficiently
`
`comparable licensing agreement; and (5) future infringement damages were based on speculative
`
`evidence. Doc. No. 432. The Court must review these evidence related to these grounds in the
`
`light most favorable to Plaintiff. Galena v. Leone, 638 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2011).
`
`
`
`Many of Defendants’ arguments in support of the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
`
`Law have previously been rejected by this Court, notably in the following Memorandum
`
`Opinions and related Orders:
`
` Memorandum Order of Court Denying Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File
`Affirmative Defense to Plaintiff’s Damages Claim and Request for Equitable
`Relief Based Upon Unclean Hands (Doc. No. 209);
` Memorandum Order of Court Denying Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment (Doc. No. 228);
` Memorandum Order of Court Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack
`of Standing (Doc. No. 229);
` Memorandum Order of Court Re: Parties’ Motions in Limine (Doc. No. 287); and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 436 Filed 07/16/15 Page 6 of 7
`
` Memorandum Opinion Re: Post-Trial Damages Motions (Doc. No. 403)
`
`The remaining grounds advanced by Defendants assail previous pre-trial rulings by the
`
`Court and/or improperly challenge the weight the jury apparently gave to the evidence presented
`
`at trial. Defendants have failed to meet their heavy burden to demonstrate that the jury could not
`
`have reasonably returned a verdict of $7.8 million because the trial record is replete with
`
`evidence that supports the jury’s balanced and independent verdict, which “did not wholly
`
`conform to either Plaintiff’s or Defendants’ request for damages.” Doc. No. 403, pg. 8.
`
`Therefore, Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law must be denied.
`
`Defendants also alternatively argue that they are entitled to a new trial because they were
`
`unable to fully present evidence as to certain Georgia-Pacific factors, damages were based upon
`
`speculative evidence with no legal relevance, and future damages were improperly submitted to
`
`the jury which was inhibited from differentiating between any damages for the patents-at-issue
`
`on the Verdict Form. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages
`
`because it has not proven that it is the true patent holder. Doc. No. 403. As previously noted,
`
`the jury was presented with relevant evidence by the Parties to support their vastly different
`
`requested damages awards. The presentation of evidence and witness examination was only
`
`limited by the Court by the entry of default judgment and previous rulings, including those on
`
`Motions in Limine. Defendants have not advanced sufficient grounds for the Court to disturb its
`
`previous rulings or order a new trial based upon any alleged error during trial because the Court
`
`finds that no error was made. Further, the jury’s verdict comports with the weight of the
`
`evidence presented and permitting this verdict to stand would not result in a miscarriage of
`
`justice. Therefore, Defendants’ alternative Motion for a New Trial must be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00111-AJS Document 436 Filed 07/16/15 Page 7 of 7
`
`IV. Order
`
`AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2015, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’
`
`Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, Motion for a New Trial (Doc. No.
`
`431) is DENIED. As the only remaining issue in this matter is the determination of the amount
`
`of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be awarded to Plaintiff, the Clerk of Court shall mark this
`
`CASE CLOSED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Arthur J. Schwab
`Arthur J. Schwab
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`cc:
`
`All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`