Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Power-One, Inc., v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,, No. 2:05-cv-00463 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2008)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:05-cv-00463, Dkt. No. 441
Decided
April 11, 2008
Judge
John D. Love, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - For the reasons stated above, Artesyn Technologies, Inc.s Renewed Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for New Trial of Invalidity of the 125 Patent (Doc. Nos. 390, 396), and Defenda…
Length
18 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court are Def endant Ar tesyn Tec hnologies, I nc.’s Rene wed Motio n for a Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for New Trial of Invalidity of the ‘125 Patent (Doc. No. 390, 396); Defendant Artesyn Technologies, Inc.’s Renewed Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law and Alternative Motion for New Trial of Invalidity of the ‘999 Patent (Doc. No. 391, 397); and various responses, replies and sur-replies. For the reasons discussed herein, Artesyn’s motions are DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Power-One, Inc.