The district court then found that Smartflash did not attempt to apply the entire market value rule, and the district court then agreed with Apple’s argument that a new trial on damages was necessary in light of the instruction provided to the jury.Īs explained by the district court, “Smartflash attempted to take salable, multi-component products and ‘apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features’ of those products. there is no basis for that jury instruction.” If that’s true, Your Honor, then a new trial is required because the jury was instructed on entire market value and. Smartflash had argued that it did not employ the entire market value rule at trial and instead employed an apportionment analysis.Īt the post-trial hearings on the issues, the district court asked Apple: “In your view, is this an entire market value rule case, or is this an apportionment case?” Instead of responding to the district court’s question, Apple stated that “ither this is not an entire market value case, which is the Smartflash current position.
The district court subsequently notified the parties pursuant to Rule 59(d) that it was considering granting a motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in Apple’s original motion.ĭuring the trial and apparently at Apple’s request, the district court instructed the jury on the entire market value rule. After a jury returned a verdict against Apple, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
0 kommentar(er)
