Omnitracs, LLC v. Platform Science, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 OMNITRACS, LLC AND XRS Case No.: 20-cv-958-CAB-DDL CORPORATION, 9 ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S Plaintiffs, 10 MOTION FOR RENEWED JMOL v. 11 OR NEW TRIAL PLATFORM SCIENCE, INC., 12 [Doc. No. 604, 606] Defendant. 13 14 15 I. Background 16 At trial, Plaintiffs Omnitracs, LLC and XRS Corporation (jointly Omnitracs) alleged 17 that defendant Platform Science, Inc. infringed various claims of four patents in this 18 litigation: U.S. Patent No. 6,925,308 claims 1 and 5; U.S. Patent No. 9,262,934 claim 23; 19 U.S. Patent No. 10,255,575 claims 1 and 11; and U.S. Patent No. 8,626,568 claims 11 and 20 23. [Doc. No. 513.]1 Before the case went to the jury, Platform Science moved for 21 Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a), on the allegations 22 of direct and indirect infringement of each of the asserted claims, willful infringement of 23 each asserted claim, and Omnitracs’ claims for lost profits and a reasonable royalty. [Doc. 24 No. 555.] 25 26 27 28 1 The Court granted Platform Science’s motion for a finding of non-infringement as 2 to the asserted claims of ‘568 patent. The remaining issues were sent to the jury. The jury 3 returned a verdict finding willful infringement of claims 1 and 5 of the ‘308 patent and 4 non-infringement of the claims of the ‘934 patent and the ‘575 patent. The jury found that 5 Platform Science did not establish it claims of invalidity of the ‘308 patent. Finally, the 6 jury awarded Omnitracs lost profits and a reasonable royalty for the infringement of the 7 ‘308 patent. [Doc. No. 564.] 8 II. Platform Science’s Renewed Motion for JMOL and for New Trial 9 Platform Science now moves for renewed JMOL under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), or in the 10 alternative a new trial, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. [Doc. No. 604, 606.] 11 Platform Science’s motion for JMOL seeks to set aside the jury’s verdict of 12 infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘308 patent, willful infringement and the award 13 of damages. Alternatively, Platform Sciences also seeks a new trial, pursuant to 14 Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(1)(a), on the ‘308 patent and a new trial on damages. 15 A. Legal Standard for JMOL 16 Platform Science renews its motion for JMOL pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b). A 17 renewed motion for JMOL is properly granted “if the evidence, construed in the light most 18 favorable to the nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that 19 conclusion is contrary to the jury’s verdict.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 20 F.3d 1236, 1242 (9th Cir. 2014), quoting Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 21 2002). A jury’s verdict must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence that is 22 adequate to support the jury’s findings, even if contrary findings are also possible. Harper 23 v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cir. 2008). 24 Reviewing a renewed motion for JMOL requires scrutiny of the entire 25 evidentiary record, but the court must not weigh the evidence, and instead 26 should simply ask whether the nonmoving party has presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion. In so doing, the court must draw 27 all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and disregard all 28 1 evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. 2 Escriba, 743 F.3d at 1242-43 (internal cites omitted.) 3 B. Legal Standard for New Trial 4 5 Alternatively, Platform Science moves for a new trial, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. 6 The authority to grant a new trial is almost entirely an exercise of discretion of the district 7 court. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980). Among the grounds 8 for a new trial are that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, that the 9 damages are excessive, or that the trial was not fair to the moving party. Molski v. M.J. 10 Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007). 11 Upon the Rule 59 motion of the party against whom a verdict has been returned, the 12 district court has “the duty … to weigh the evidence as the court saw it, and to set aside the 13 verdict of the jury, even though supported by substantial evidence, where, in the court’s 14 conscientious opinion, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.” Id. 15 III. ‘308 Patent 16 The ‘308 patent was filed in February 2002, and expired in July 2022. The patent is 17 for an apparatus for automatically entering information into formatted systems. [Doc. No. 18 1-2, at 111, Abstract.] The patent is directed to a communication terminal that receives an 19 identification code to identify one of a plurality of pre-defined formatted messages, or 20 macros. Each pre-defined formatted message has a plurality of information fields. The 21 terminal based on the transmitted identification code will select the corresponding pre- 22 defined message format, or macro, and populate the information fields of that format with 23 information transmitted with the code to display the message to the user. 24 The communication terminal has a memory that stores “field-mapping” information 25 which corresponds to the message’s identification code, i.e., recognizes the pre-defined 26 message from the code and the stores the information from the information fields of that 27 pre-defined message. When required, the terminal creates a response message 28 corresponding to the original message’s identification code and automatically imports 1 stored information from the original message’s information fields into corresponding 2 information fields in the response message. [Id., at Col. 2:36-60; Doc. No. 574, Trial 3 Transcript (“TT”), at 37-38.] By sending only a code for the format of the original message 4 with its specific information details, and automatically copying the information from the 5 original message to the response message, the system reduces the time and cost of 6 transmitting communications and minimizes the chance of operator error in copying over 7 information. [Doc. No. 1-2, at Col. 1:27-Col. 2:34.] 8 Asserted independent Claim 1 claims as follows, 9 A communication terminal, comprising:

10 a receiver for receiving a formatted message out of a number of pre-defined 11 formatted messages, comprising a message identification code and a plurality of information fields; 12 13 an output device for presenting said formatted message to a user of said communication terminal; 14 15 an input device for responding to said formatted message;

16 a memory for storing said formatted message and for storing field-mapping 17 information, said field-mapping information for indicating information to be copied from said formatted message to a response message based on which one of said pre- 18 defined formatted messages was received; 19 a processor for creating said response message in response to an indication from said 20 input device of a request to respond to said formatted message, said response 21 message comprising at least one response message information field, wherein information from at least one of said plurality of information fields of said formatted 22 message is copied into at least one of said response message information fields based 23 on said field-mapping information; and 24 a transmitter for transmitting said information relating to said response message. 25 26 [Doc. No. 1-2, at 120, Col. 9:2-25.] 27 28 1 IV. Accused Device 2 Omnitracs accused Platform Science of infringing Claim 1 and dependent claim 5 of 3 the ‘308 patent with its software “Workflow” application operating on a tablet device that 4 is part of Platform Science’s telematics system. The tablet, generally located in the mobile 5 vehicle (e.g., truck cab) is a communication terminal that receives a message from a remote 6 source (e.g., dispatch center) about such matters as deliveries or pickups, etc. The tablet 7 can display the received message, store the content, and provides an input device for the 8 driver to enter information in response and send the response (e.g., keyboard or touch 9 screen, and a transmitter). 10 In Platform Science’s Workflow application, a message is sent to a driver from fleet 11 dispatch that is comprised of a Job with Steps with Tasks & Forms. [Trial Exs. 487 and 12 1027.] The Job message contains the high level details of the work to be executed. This 13 Job message is not received as a code and was not asserted by Omnitracs as meeting the 14 claim limitation of a formatted message out of a number of pre-defined formatted 15 messages, comprising a message identification code and a plurality of information 16 fields. There was no evidence or opinion offered that the Job message is a pre-defined 17 formatted message with a message identification code. 18 Within the received Job message are one or more Steps, the assigned work sequence. 19 [Id.] The Steps are the stages of the Job. A Step of the Job message is also not received as 20 a code and was not asserted by Omnitracs as meeting the claim limitation of a formatted 21 message out of a number of pre-defined formatted messages, comprising a message 22 identification code and a plurality of information fields. There was no evidence or 23 opinion offered that the Steps of the Job message are pre-defined formatted messages with 24 message identification codes. 25 The Steps of a Job are made up of Tasks. [Id.] Tasks are identified actions to be 26 completed in a Step of the Job sequence. Tasks are the lowest level of a Step and identify 27 singular activities to be completed (e.g., arrival, loading, departure). A Step may have more 28 than one Task. Each Task has an assigned name used by the Job and the Step to call up 1 the Task and a corresponding Form associated to the Task name that is presented to the 2 user of the communication terminal to indicate the status or completion of the Task. It is a 3 one-to-one correlation. When each Task of a Step is completed, the application moves to 4 the next Step in the Job sequence. [Id.] 5 A. Motion for Renewed JMOL 6 Omnitracs’ expert Dr. Kevin Almeroth opined that a Task within a Job message meets 7 the claim limitation of a formatted message out of a number of pre-defined formatted 8 messages, comprising a message identification code and a plurality of information 9 fields. A Task name is the identification code for the Task type and its corresponding Form 10 displayed to the user. He further opined that information from at least one of the plurality 11 of information fields of a Task is copied into the Form corresponding to that specific Task, 12 meeting the claim limitation of information from at least one of said plurality of 13 information fields of said formatted message is copied into at least one of said 14 response message information fields. 15 In Dr. Almeroth’s opinion a Task in the Platform Science Workflow application 16 meets all the limitations of Claim 1 because it is received by the tablet as a code. He opined 17 that each Task has a plurality of information fields and is received by the tablet with 18 information to populate those fields in a corresponding Form. The Task and the Form 19 however are transmitted as part of the overall Job which sends the information received by 20 the terminal to be displayed to the user. 21 Missing from his conclusory analysis was any evidence that a Task received by the 22 communication terminal in the form of an identification code within a Job message has a 23 plurality of information fields containing information that is displayed to the user and saved 24 by the communication terminal. There was no evidence that a Task supplies the 25 information from one of those plurality of fields that is used to automatically complete a 26 corresponding response message. He did point to information that was from the hierarchy 27 of the Job message or a Step of the Job message that appeared in an information field of 28 the Form associated with a Task. He did not however assert that the Job message or the 1 Steps were pre-defined formatted messages received by the communication terminal as an 2 identification code. 3 Dr. Almeroth’s infringement analysis blurred the various components of the 4 Workflow system to build his infringement opinion. A Task was identified as the 5 component of the system that has a pre-defined identification code. But he did not 6 demonstrate that a Task has a plurality of information fields; it is simply an action to be 7 completed. The overall Job and Steps of the Job contain data that is copied into the Form 8 related to a particular Task, but that information was not transmitted to the communication 9 terminal as an information field in a Task. 10 The Court sent the question of infringement of the ‘308 patent to the jury, however, 11 the Court finds that the infringement analysis offered by Omnitracs’ expert did not cover 12 the limitations of claim. See Amhil Enterprises LTD v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 13 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (“Literal infringement of a claim exists when every limitation recited in 14 the claim is found in the accused device, i.e., when the properly construed claim reads on 15 the accused device exactly.”); Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 16 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(“To prove infringement a patentee must show that an accused 17 product or method meets every claim limitation. …”). 18 Dr. Almeroth opined that a Task of the Platform Science Workflow application 19 meets all the claim limitations, however he used other components of the application to 20 meet the missing elements. Considering the testimony and exhibits offered by Omnitracs 21 on this question, the Court finds that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find 22 that the accused component of the Workflow application, a Task, met all the limitations of 23 the claim. 24 The Court therefore GRANTS Platform Science’s renewed motion for JMOL of 25 non-infringement of the ‘308 patent. 26 B. Motion for New Trial 27 Alternatively, The Court GRANTS Platform Science’s motion for new trial on the 28 claim of infringement of the ‘308 patent and damages pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59. The 1 evidence, or more specifically the lack of evidence at trial, did not support the infringement 2 opinion of Omnitracs’ expert. 3 The Platform Science Workflow application transmits a Job message to a driver 4 containing a sequence of Steps to complete the Job. Within those Steps are discreet Tasks. 5 Each Task has an associated Form for reporting the status/completion of the Task back to 6 the dispatcher. The Form when viewed by the driver is partially populated with 7 information transmitted in the overall hierarchy of the Job message. Based on this 8 evidence the jury found that Platform Science’s Workflow application infringes the 9 asserted claims of the ‘308 patent by copying information from the incoming message to a 10 form in the application that is transmitted as a response message. 11 The Court however finds, as set forth above, that this evidence is insufficient to find 12 infringement of the asserted claims. Omnitracs’ theory of infringement of the ‘308 patent 13 specifically identified the Task element of the Job message as a pre-formatted message 14 received by the tablet as an identification code with a plurality of information fields. In 15 accordance with Omnitracs’ theory of infringement the Task code is also transmitted to the 16 tablet with information to be populated into the plurality of fields of the Task, to meet the 17 first limitation of the claim. The Task however is a singular event or action in the Step of 18 a Job, and there was no evidence that a Task, unlike the Job message of which it is a subset, 19 is transmitted to the tablet of the driver with multiple information fields and information to 20 populate those fields. It is an action or event that calls up an associated form that is partially 21 populated by information from the Job message and/or the sequence of Steps contained 22 within the Job. 23 Platform Science’s Workflow application is a messaging application for 24 communication between dispatch and drivers. The application includes forms for the user 25 to report the status of a job to dispatch. Fields in the responding form are partially 26 populated with information provided by the received Job message, but this messaging 27 application does not meet the limitations of Claim 1 of the ‘308 patent. 28 1 The Court therefore granted Platform Science’s renewed motion for JMOL of non- 2 ||infringement of the ‘308 patent. Alternatively, the Court GRANTS Platform Science’s 3 || motion for new trial on the claim of infringement of the ‘308 patent and damages pursuant 4 ||to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 as the Court finds the jury’s verdict of infringement is against the great 5 || weight of the evidence. 6 V. Conclusion 7 The Court hereby GRANTS Platform Science’s renewed motion for JMOL of 8 ||noninfringement of Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘308 patent and vacates the damages award and 9 || judgment in favor of Omnitracs and enters judgment for Platform Science. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 23, 2024 12 ( 13 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28