Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20451/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20451-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Damage

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT.

(JFLC3)

**E-filed 8/29/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ASYST TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EMPAK, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 98-20451 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 1

ALTER OR AMEND THE

JUDGMENT 

[re: docket no. 1118]

Plaintiff Asyst Technologies, Inc. (“Asyst”) moves to alter or amend the judgment of this

Court to include rulings on all post-trial motions filed by Defendants Jenoptik AG, Jenoptik

Infab, Inc. and Emtrak, Inc. (“Jenoptik”). 

On August 3, 2007, this Court granted Jenoptik’s motion for judgment as a matter of law

(“JMOL”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), on the basis that claims 2 and 11-14 of U.S. Patent

No. 5,097,421 (“the ’421 patent”) are invalid due to obviousness. See Dkt. 1115. In the

alternative, in the event that JMOL on the issue of obviousness were to be vacated or reversed on

appeal, the Court granted Jenoptik’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(c) and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, both because the jury was improperly instructed on the issue of obviousness

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 1120 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT.

(JFLC3)

in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct.

1727 (2007) and because the jury’s finding that the Hesser reference was not relevant prior art

was not supported by the record. Id. The Court terminated Jenoptik’s remaining motions

without prejudice, including its motion for a new trial or remittitur with respect to damages. Id.

The Court noted that because it found claims 2 and 11-14 of the ’421 patent invalid it did not

have to reach the issue of damages, but that it if it were to reach that issue it would be inclined to

grant a new trial or remittitur. Id. 

Asyst contends that the Court should decide the motion with respect to damages “to avoid

the possibility of further seriatim appeals.” Asyst Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, 2:19

(“Asyst Motion”). Asyst cites several Federal Circuit cases in support of its argument. See

Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l, 508 U.S. 83, 97-102 (1993); Microsoft, Inc. v. Multi-Tech

Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371,

1383 (Fed. Cir. 2005); and Impro II Licensing S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 450 F.3d 1350,

1358-60 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In each of these cited cases, the Court of Appeals construed all

contested claim limitations even though a determination with respect to infringement was

possible based on particular claim terms. The court reasoned that this approach furthered judicial

economy because a valid patent might be asserted against future infringers and thus the disputed

claim terms, while not relevant to the finding of infringement in the instant cases, might be

relevant in future infringement actions against different infringers. 

The instant case presents an entirely different situation. The Court simply has concluded

that the rather complex issues presented with respect to the quantum of damages are rendered

moot by its determination that the patent is invalid and that the jury was incorrectly instructed

with respect to obviousness. Should these determinations be reversed in their entirety, the

quantum of damages to which Asyst is entitled will be the sole remaining issue for

determination; there are no future infringers or other third parties whose rights may be

implicated. 

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 1120 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT.

(JFLC3)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 8/29/07

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 1120 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 98-20451 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT.

(JFLC3)

Copies of this Order have been served upon the following persons:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Darryl M. Woo

Fenwick & West LLP

Silicon Valley Center

801 California Street

Mountain View, CA 94041-2008

Fax: (650) 938-5200

Counsel for Defendants:

Daniel T. Shvodian

James F. Valentine

David L. Bilsker

Howrey LLP

301 Ravenswood Avenue

Menlo Park, CA 94025-3434

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 1120 Filed 08/29/07 Page 4 of 4