Opinion
2:20-cv-01503-JHC
06-20-2023
NXP USA, INC., and NXP B.V., Plaintiffs, v. IMPINJ, INC., Defendant.
ORDER RE: IMPINJ' S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
JOHN H. CHUN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Impinj's motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) as to infringement. Dkt. # 538. NXP opposes the motion. Dkt. # 542.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1), “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue,” the Court may resolve that issue against the party. A motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) should be granted if “the evidence presented at trial permits only one reasonable conclusion.” Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2002)). “[A] motion for a judgment as a matter of law is properly granted only if no reasonable juror could find in the non-moving party's favor.” Id. (quoting El-Hakem v. BJY Inc., 415 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)). “The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of that party.” Id. at 1205-06; see also Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“JMOL is appropriate when ‘a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.'” (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1))).
The Court DENIES the motion (Dkt. # 538) without prejudice to any post-trial motion.