Opinion
2:07-CV-00331-PMP-PAL
03-11-2013
HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On November 14, 2012, after Plaintiff Halo Electronics had completed presentation of its case in chief before the jury, Defendant Pulse Electronics, Inc. filed Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of Non-Infringement, No Induced Infringement, and No Willfulness (Docs. #444 and #445). Pulse Supplemented its Motion (Doc. #455) on November 18, 2012. On November 19, 2012, Plaintiff Halo filed a written Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Rule 50(a) (Doc. #458).
On November 20, 2012, Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc. also filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Rule 50(a) and Rule 52(c) (Doc. #461). Defendant Pulse filed a Response to Plaintiff Halo's Motion (Doc. #499) on December 4, 2012.
On November 26, 2012, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Plaintiff Halo and against Defendant Pulse on most of the infringement claims asserted, and also found Defendant Pulse's infringement to be willful and awarded monetary damages.
The Court finds the evidence adduced at trial clearly supports the verdicts returned by the jury and therefore concludes that Defendant Pulse's Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. #444, #445, #455), must be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Halo's Counter Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. #461) is DENIED as moot in view of the verdicts of the jury.
____________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge