Judge ruled on the JMOL motions changing her tentative ruling:
(1) Blue Coat’s Rule 50(b) motion as to literal and willful infringement of the ’844 and ’494 patents is DENIED.
(2) Blue Coat’s Rule 50(b) motion as to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of the ’844 and ’494 patents is GRANTED.
(3) Blue Coat’s Rule 50(b) motion as to worldwide damages on the ’844 patent is GRANTED.
(4) Blue Coat’s Rule 50(b) motion as to worldwide damages on the ’494 patent is DENIED.
(5) Finjan’s Rule 50(b) motion is DENIED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
That was smart to give Finjan another chance to plead willful infringement. Takes away the appeal. Doubtful the jury would give it to them based on how the first trial went, but the judge can still take it away later. Jury finding is just advisory.
In a strange split decision, the judge ruled Finjan can't ask for worldwide damages on the 844 patent, but can on the 494. I have no idea why they would be different. Will have to look again how the processes are performed and which servers perform the processing.
Everything Finjan asked for was denied.
Strange ruling that neither side will like. Sure to be appealed.
Changes maximum award from $46M to around $30M I think. My opinion is jury will allow either $12.5M - $20M or nothing. Sure screws up the other cases as worldwide sales and that $8/user are what they are trying to get from everybody. Reduces value of current cases and patent portfolio quite a bit in addition to the license they gave away to FireEye. Wonder if Blue Coat attorneys will get that into this trial and claim IF they infringed the damages should be MUCH less. How can this add-on case with two patents be valued at more than the license of the entire portfolio they gave FireEye for a net of $12.5M?
