EMC Corporation v. Pure Storage, Inc., 13-1985-RGA. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Delaware
Number: infdco20160316947
Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . Pure seeks judgment as a matter oflaw that the accused products do not infringe claim 32 of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,464 ("the '464 patent") under the doctrine of equivalents ("DOE"). (D.I. 443). EMC argues that the testimony of its expert witness provides a sufficient basis from which the jury could reasonably find that the accused product infringes claim 32 under the DOE. (D.I. 444 at 4). There is insufficient evidence from which a jury
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . Pure seeks judgment as a matter oflaw that the accused products do not infringe claim 32 of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,464 ("the '464 patent") under the doctrine of equivalents ("DOE"). (D.I. 443). EMC argues that the testimony of its expert witness provides a sufficient basis from which the jury could reasonably find that the accused product infringes claim 32 under the DOE. (D.I. 444 at 4). There is insufficient evidence from which a jury ..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.
Pure seeks judgment as a matter oflaw that the accused products do not infringe claim 32 of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,464 ("the '464 patent") under the doctrine of equivalents ("DOE"). (D.I. 443). EMC argues that the testimony of its expert witness provides a sufficient basis from which the jury could reasonably find that the accused product infringes claim 32 under the DOE. (D.I. 444 at 4).
There is insufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that the FlashArray infringes claim 32 of the '464 patent under the DOE. See FED. R. Crv. P. 50(a); Buskirkv. Apollo Metals, 307 F.3d 160, 166 (3d Cir. 2002). EMC's expert's conclusoryDOE testimony (Trial Tr. at 529:2-9) fails to provide the "particularized testimony and linking argument" required by the Federal Circuit. See Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1996). EMC also did not present any evidence from which the jury could find equivalence on the basis of insubstantial differences or known interchangeability. (See Trial Tr. at 525-30).
For the reasons stated above, Pure's motion for judgment as a matter of law (D.I. 443) is GRANTED.
Source: Leagle
