Published on:

Judge Andrews grants Comcast’s post-trial motion reversing jury’s finding of infringement

Judge Andrews recently considered post-trial motions after a jury found Comcast infringed all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit.  Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast IP Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 12-1013-RGA (Aug. 7, 2015).  Comcast moved for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of infringement.  Comcast argued, among other things, that its accused networks “do not and cannot contain multiple, unique ring terminals-and thus do not infringe the asserted patent claims.”  Id. at 5.  Viewing the evidence in Sprint’s favor, Judge Andrews found that “a reasonable jury could not have concluded that a combination of interface cards meets the Court’s construction of ‘ring terminal.'”  Id. at 11.  Judge Andrews found that the testimony of Sprint’s expert was contradicted by the platform manuals.  Id.  Judge Andrews also found that the platforms in the accused networks share multiple rings, therefore a reasonable jury could not have found infringement.  Id. at 15.

In the alternative, Comcast also moved for a new trial arguing, among other things, that Sprint presented a new infringement theory based on expert testimony not previously disclosed.  Id. at 21.  Judge Andrews agreed.  Prior to trial, Comcast filed a motion in limine to preclude the expert’s testimony that “a single interface card is a ‘ring terminal'” because it was not disclosed in his expert report.  Judge Andrews reserved decision.  Id. at 23.  After Comcast renewed the argument post-trial, Judge Andrews found that Comcast was entitled to a new trial because Sprint’s concession at oral argument that “a single interface card is not the ring terminal” was in direct conflict with Sprint’s arguments at summary judgment and its expert’s testimony at trial.  Id. at 25.

Contact Information