Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00457/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00457-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASETEK DANMARK A/S,

Plaintiff,

v.

CMI USA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DIRECTED VERDICT AS TO 

ASETEK’S CLAIM FOR 

CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT

This is a patent infringement case. At the close of evidence in the trial that recently 

concluded, Defendant CMI USA, Inc. (“CMI”) orally moved for a directed verdict on Plaintiff 

Asetek Danmark A/S’ (“Asetek”) claim for contributory infringement. CMI argues that “Asetek 

has to show that the defendant sold the Accused Products knowing that the combination being sold 

was both patented and infringing, and that the components had no substantial noninfringing uses,” 

ECF No. 213 (Transcript of Proceedings, 12/15/14) at 1483-84, and that “there’s no evidence that 

CMI didn’t have a reasonable belief that their products were noninfringing.” Id. at 1485. CMI 

also argues that Asetek submitted no proof of direct infringement by a third party. Id. at 1483. 

Under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant a motion for 

judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) against a party on a claim or issue where the party has been 

“fully heard on [that] issue during a jury trial” and the court finds that a “reasonable jury would 

not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to find for that party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). “[A] 

directed verdict is proper when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion as to the 

verdict.” McGonigle v. Combs, 968 F.2d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1992).

1

 

1

In reviewing motions for JMOL, the Federal Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit in 

which the district court is located. See, e.g., Enovsys LLC v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc., 614 F.3d 

Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 232 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“In order to succeed on a claim of contributory infringement, in addition to proving an act 

of direct infringement, plaintiff must show that defendant ‘knew that the combination for which its 

components were especially made was both patented and infringing’ and that defendant’s 

components have ‘no substantial non-infringing uses.’” Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic 

Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Golden Blount, Inc. v. 

Robert H. Peterson Co., 365 F.3d 1054, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Once the plaintiff makes a prima 

facie showing that defendant’s product is not suitable for substantial non-infringing use, the 

burden of demonstrating a non-infringing use shifts to the defendant. Golden Blount, 438 F.3d at 

1363. 

Addressing CMI’s first argument, Asetek sent a cease-and-desist letter to CMI on 

November 28th, 2012 accusing CMI’s products of infringing Asetek’s patents. From that day 

forward, a jury could reasonably conclude (and did conclude in this case) that CMI “knew that the 

combination for which its components were especially made was both patented and infringing.” 

With regard to CMI’s second argument, Asetek submitted the testimony of Dr. Donald 

Tilton testimony that, once assembled and installed, CMI’s products infringed Asetek’s patents. 

See, e.g., ECF No. 198 (Reporter’s Transcript, 12/8/14) at 669. Dr. Tilton also testified that 

CMI’s products have no non-infringing uses. ECF No. 198 (Reporter’s Transcript, 12/8/14) at 

672. In further support of its case, Asetek’s cross-examination of Danny Chen, the General 

Manager of CMI, demonstrated that CMI sells its products with instruction manuals that show 

third party purchasers how to install CMI products in a manner that infringes Asetek’s patents. 

See ECF No. 203 (Reporter’s Transcript, 12/11/14) at 1078, 1091, 1092, 1094-95. For example, 

Mr. Chen testified as follows:

Q. Okay. In any event, the instructions that CMI USA includes with 

the products that it sells specifically have drawings and pictures that 

show people how to install these products --

A. Yes.

 

1333, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 232 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Q. -- in their home computers. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And those are actually drawings, so that even if you don’t 

speak a particular language, you can probably understand how to 

install them. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. They’re designed for that very purpose. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. You want to communicate to people how to install these in their 

home computers. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And what they essentially say is that the pump head, which I’m 

holding in my right hand -- well, it has a copper plate on the bottom 

of it. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And users take -- CMI USA’s customers take the pump head, and 

they actually install it over the CPU that is in the user’s home 

computer. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And they do that in the United States. Right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then they also take the radiator, and they install it over to the 

side. They screw it into the side of the PC box. Right?

A. Ah, they almost install in the top.

Q. They install it in the PC box. Right?

A. Yeah. Yes.

Q. And that’s according to the instructions that you provide. Right?

A. Yes.

Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 232 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Id. at 1094-95. Because the “the instructions packaged with each device teach the infringing 

configuration and nothing in the record suggests that . . . any end-user ignored the instructions or 

assembled the [products] in a manner contrary to the instructions so as to form a non-infringing 

configuration,” Golden Blount, 438 F.3d at 1363, a reasonable jury could conclude that CMI’s 

products have no non-infringing use. 

In short, Asetek has submitted sufficient evidence on each of the elements of its 

contributory infringement claims from which a reasonable jury could find in its favor. CMI’s 

motion for JMOL is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00457-JST Document 232 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 4