EMC Corporation, et al. v. Zerto, Inc., C.A. No. 12-956 - GMS, March 31, 2016.

Sleet, J. Defendant’s motion regarding inequitable conduct is denied; its motion for a new trial or to alter judgment is denied; it renewed JMOL motion is denied.  Plaintiff’s JMOL motion is granted as to one patent and denied as to two others; its motion for a permanent injunction is denied; its motion to amend the judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The parties are to engage in mediation regarding an appropriate royalty rate.

A 10-day trial took place beginning April 27, 2015 and the jury found for plaintiff and awarded $585,783 in damages. The disputed technology relates to data protection. Defendant asks to hold the ‘867patent unenforceable because of a misleading statement during IPR and for failure to disclose references in an Information Disclosure statement during prosecution. . The court denies these requests. Defendant asks for a new trial due to inconsistent verdicts. For example the jury found some dependent claims infringed but not independent claims. The flawed jury verdict must stand because the 28-day window within which to grant a new trial has passed. The court denied the JMOL motions except for one. The only reasonable inference a jury could draw is that claim 1 of the ‘091 patent is directly infringed by at least one of defendant’s customers.  Instead it found no direct infringement. Plaintiff’s JMOL motion is granted in this regard. The court declines to issue a permanent injunction finding the balance of hardships clearly weighs strongly against awarding an injunction.