United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Richard D. Harris Howard E. Silverman James J. Lukas, Jr.
Matthew J. Levinstein Benjamin P. Gilford Callie J. Sand
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Kranos
Corporation d/b/a/ Schutt Sports
DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW, MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND MOTION FOR
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, JUDGE
respectfully moves this Court for a new trial on the issue of
reasonable royalty damages.
new trial may be granted if the verdict is against the clear
weight of the evidence, the damages are excessive or the
trial was unfair to the moving party.” Miksis v.
Howard, 106 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 1997). There is not
any basis for the jury's award to Riddell of 10% of
Schutt's (approximately) $50, 000, 000 in accused helmets
with a Vengeance shell (“Product”) revenues.
(Dkt. No. 351.) The jury's royalty base is impermissible
as an improper application of the entire market value rule.
The jury's royalty rate is impermissible because it bears
no relation to any relevant royalty rate evidence presented
at trial. Schutt also requests a new reasonable royalty
damages trial with respect to Asserted Claim 58 of the
‘818 patent and Asserted Claim 6 of the ‘118
patent. Riddell has not presented any evidence whether or to
what extent the features of those claims contribute to
consumer demand for apportionment purposes. Absent any
evidence on that issue, there is no defensible basis for the
jury's reasonable royalty damages award with respect to
those two claims. Alternatively, Schutt requests that the
Court offer Riddell a remittitur. Under the maximum recovery
rule, the highest possible reasonable royalty award supported
by the evidence is $862, 695.
also moves this Court for Judgment as a Matter of Law that
Schutt's infringement of the Asserted Claims was not
Rule 50, a court may enter judgment as a matter of law when
it finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally
sufficient evidentiary basis to support its verdict.”
Martinez v. City of Chicago, 900 F.3d 838, 844 (7th
Cir. 2018) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1)). There is no
support for the jury's willfulness finding. Schutt's
infringement, if upheld on appeal, was nothing more than
typical infringement that does not rise to the level of
egregious misconduct. At all relevant times, Schutt operated
under the reasonable belief that the Asserted Claims were
invalid. Schutt introduced its Vengeance helmet to market
years before the patents-in-suit issued. Schutt simply
borrowed the claimed features of the Asserted Claims from
pre-existing Schutt helmets. Indeed, Schutt owns intellectual
property that covers a rear offset and aligned vent
openings-two of the three claimed features of the
patents-in-suit. Riddell's 15-month delay after the
issuance of the patents-in-suit to sue Schutt also
contributed to Schutt's belief that its sale of Vengeance
helmets did not infringe a validly issued patent. The only
conclusion that the Court can reach on this record is that
Schutt's infringement, if any, was not wanton, malicious,
and/or bad faith. The Court should grant Schutt JMOL of no
also requests that the Court grant its motion for Judgment as
a Matter of Law that the Accused Products do not infringe
Asserted Claim 6 of the ‘118 patent.
of the ‘118 patent states that “the side wall [of
the raised central band] has a curvilinear configuration as
it extends between the crown region and the rear region of
the shell.” (PTX001 at claim 6.) The Court construed
the term “curvilinear configuration” to mean
“walls that curve in the horizontal plane as they
extend from the front to the rear of the shell.” (Tr.
1247:2-4.) The Accused Products do not have walls that curve
in the horizontal plane as they extend from the front to the
rear of the shell. (DTX369 (Vengeance).) None of
Riddell's technical expert's testimony leads to the
contrary conclusion. (Tr. 415:16-416:17, 423:14-20,
428:8-11.) On this record, no reasonable jury could find that
Riddell met its burden of proving that the accused Vengeance
helmets infringe claim 6 of the ‘118 patent. The Court
should grant Schutt JMOL of non-infringement of Asserted
Claim 6 of the ‘118 patent.
also moves for a new trial on priority.
the jury's verdict that Riddell met its burden of proving
that the Provisional Application provides support for the
offset band-related limitations of asserted claims 1, 2, 5,
6, 11, and 40 of the ‘818 patent (the “Offset
Claims”) was against the clear weight of the evidence.
The only possible support for those limitations in the
Provisional Application is in the drawings-specifically,
figures 19 and 20. (Tr. 435:12-16.) Figures 19 and 20 of the
Provisional Application fail to provide support for each of
the Offset Band Limitations. Additionally, the jury's
verdict that Riddell met its burden of proving that the
Provisional Application provides support for an
“integrally formed” raised central band or rear
offset band was against the clear weight of the evidence. The
only possible support for an “integrally formed”
raised central band in the Provisional Application is in the
drawings. (Tr. 435:2-16, 435:21-436:3, 439:18-21.) But both
Riddell's and Schutt's witnesses testified that a
person cannot tell from a drawing or photograph whether a
raised central band is integrally formed. (Tr. 313:14-20,
323:12-324:5, 331:13-15, 439:12-17, 910:9-911:10, 914:6-7,
440:4-441:6, 1118:6-1119:1.) For these reasons, the Court
should grant Schutt a new trial on priority.
finally, Schutt request that the Court grant it a new trial
the jury's verdict that the asserted claims of the
‘818 patent are not obvious over VSR4 in combination
with Bike was against the clear weight of the evidence.
Second, the jury's verdict that claims 1, 2, 5, 11, and
50 of the ‘818 patent and claim 6 of the ‘118
patent were not obvious over JOFA alone was against the clear
weight of the evidence. And third, the jury's verdict
that claim 6 of the ‘118 patent was not obvious over
Wilson F2000 in combination with Sears 2442 was against the
clear weight of the evidence. The record evidence
establishes, and Riddell does not dispute, that VSR4, Bike,
JOFA, Wilson F2000, and Sears 2442 are prior art. The record
evidence also establishes-through both Schutt's and
Riddell's witnesses-that these references disclose all of
the claimed features of the Asserted Claims of the
patents-in-suit and that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have motivated to combine the various features of these
references to achieve the claimed invention.
these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in Schutt's
contemporaneously-filed combined memorandum of law, ...