Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 342 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 19932
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00123-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER MEMORIALIZING 50(a) MOTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court conducted a jury trial in the above-captioned matter from October 1, 2020 to
`
`October 8, 2020. After Plaintiff Vocalife LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Vocalife”) and Defendants
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “Amazon) (together with
`
`Vocalife, the “Parties”) had been fully heard and rested, the Court took up the Parties’ Motions for
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). This Order
`
`memorializes the Court’s rulings on the aforementioned 50(a) motions, as announced into the
`
`record. While this order summarizes the Court’s rulings as announced into the record, this Order
`
`in no way limits or constrains such rulings from the bench. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
`
`as follows:
`
`1. Vocalife’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Invalidity of U.S. Patent
`No. RE 47,049 for Lack of Enablement and Written Description
`
`
`
`Vocalife moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law that Claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE 47,049 (the “’049 Patent”) were not invalid for lack of written description or enablement. (Dkt.
`
`No. 339 at 1247:9-17). Amazon agreed that no evidence of invalidity based on lack of enablement
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00123-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER MEMORIALIZING 50(a) MOTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court conducted a jury trial in the above-captioned matter from October 1, 2020 to
`
`October 8, 2020. After Plaintiff Vocalife LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Vocalife”) and Defendants
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “Amazon) (together with
`
`Vocalife, the “Parties”) had been fully heard and rested, the Court took up the Parties’ Motions for
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). This Order
`
`memorializes the Court’s rulings on the aforementioned 50(a) motions, as announced into the
`
`record. While this order summarizes the Court’s rulings as announced into the record, this Order
`
`in no way limits or constrains such rulings from the bench. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
`
`as follows:
`
`1. Vocalife’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Invalidity of U.S. Patent
`No. RE 47,049 for Lack of Enablement and Written Description
`
`
`
`Vocalife moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law that Claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE 47,049 (the “’049 Patent”) were not invalid for lack of written description or enablement. (Dkt.
`
`No. 339 at 1247:9-17). Amazon agreed that no evidence of invalidity based on lack of enablement
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 342 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 19933
`
`or lack of written description had been presented to the jury during the trial. (Id. at 1249:4-9).
`
`Accordingly, the Motion was GRANTED. (Id. at 1249:10-15).
`
`2. Vocalife’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Invalidity for
`Inoperativeness or Failure to Disclose What the Inventors Regard as Their
`Invention
`
`
`
`Vocalife moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law of no invalidity of the ’049 Patent based
`
`on inoperability within 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Id. at 1243:24-1244:2, 1250:23-1251:4). Amazon
`
`contended that sufficient evidence was put forth on the issue to preclude JMOL. (Id. at 1251:7-
`
`19). The Court DENIED the Motion. (Id. at 1251:21-25).
`
`3. Amazon’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Induced Infringement
`
`
`
`Amazon moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law of no induced infringement on two
`
`grounds: (1) Vocalife presented no evidence of knowledge of infringement; and (2) Vocalife
`
`lacked substantial evidence of direct infringement by Amazon’s customers. (Dkt. No. 318 at 2-10;
`
`Dkt. No. 339 at 1244:13-16, 1252:11-1252:8). Vocalife contended that sufficient evidence was
`
`presented of Amazon’s intent based on its instructions to customers and that the products as used
`
`by customers directly infringe. (Dkt. No. 339 at 1254:14-1255:14). The Motion was DENIED.
`
`(Id. at 1255:16-18).
`
`4. Amazon’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Direct Infringement
`
`
`
`Amazon moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law of no direct infringement of the ’049
`
`Patent by Amazon. (Dkt. No. 318 at 10; Dkt. No. 339 at 1244:17-18, 1255:22-1256:6). Vocalife
`
`argued that evidence was presented that Amazon tested its products, collected data on such
`
`products, released new products, updated its products, displayed its products, and used its products.
`
`(Dkt. No. 339 at 1256:8-1257:2). Despite such argument by Vocalife, the Court found that a
`
`reasonable jury would not have a sufficient evidentiary basis from which to find direct
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 342 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 19934
`
`infringement and that judgment as a matter of law was warranted. The Court GRANTED the
`
`Motion, finding no direct infringement by Amazon, but the Court did find that there was an open
`
`issue with regard to Amazon’s customers directly infringing, as a component of the indirect
`
`infringement inquiry. (Id. at 1257:3-9).
`
`5. Amazon’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Contributory
`Infringement
`
`
`
`Amazon moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law that there was no contributory
`
`infringement. (Dkt. No. 318 at 10-11; Dkt. No. 339 at 1244:19-20, 1257:13-1258:2). Vocalife
`
`argued that, although not included in the pre-trial order submitted by the Parties, there was
`
`evidence presented of contributory infringement. (Dkt. No. 339 at 1258:4-22). The Court
`
`GRANTED the Motion, finding that no evidence of contributory infringement was presented to
`
`the jury. (Id. at 1258:23-1259:6).
`
`6. Amazon’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`
`
`Amazon moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law that there was no infringement under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. (Dkt. No. 318 at 11; Dkt. No. 339 at 1244:21). Vocalife agreed. (Dkt. No.
`
`339 at 1246:6-11). Accordingly, the Motion was GRANTED. (Id. at 1246:12-16, 1259:7-10).
`
`7. Amazon’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Willfulness
`
`
`
`Amazon moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law that there was no willful infringement.
`
`(Dkt. No. 318 at 11-13; Dkt. No. 339 at 1244:22, 1259:15-1261:1). Vocalife contended that
`
`sufficient evidence was presented that would preclude JMOL. (Dkt. No. 339 at 1261:4-22). The
`
`Motion was DENIED. (Id. at 1261:23-25).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 342 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 19935
`
`8. Amazon’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Damages or No
`Evidence to Support a Reasonable Royalty
`
`
`
`Amazon moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law on five issues related to damages: (1) the
`
`reasonable royalty base; (2) apportionment; (3) no damages for direct infringement; (4) the
`
`inventor’s offer to sell the ’049 Patent to Google; and (5) no evidence to support a running royalty.
`
`(Dkt. No. 318 at 13-18; Dkt. No. 339 at 1244:23-25, 1262:7-1266:2). Vocalife responded that it
`
`presented sufficient evidence on the royalty base, apportionment, and the Google offer. (Dkt. No.
`
`339 at 1266:8-1267:20). The Court DENIED the Motion. (Id. at 1267:21-1268:1).
`
`
`
`4
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of November, 2020.
`
`
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
