Optis' Post-Trial Motions in Apple Case Demand Serious Attention

"The filings submitted by the plaintiffs seeking judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or in the alternative for a new trial present a compelling argument that the jury's verdict is not merely unfavorable, but structurally unsound."

"A patent is considered standard essential once it has been declared or disclosed as potentially essential to the standard setting body (ETSI in this case)."

"The jury was not instructed that the patents were, in fact, technically essential, when in fact that issue had already been decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit."

In the patent litigation between Optis Wireless and Apple, post-trial motions raise serious concerns about the jury's verdict. The plaintiffs argue that the trial deviated from legal standards, highlighting errors in evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. A critical issue is the treatment of standard essential patents (SEPs), where the jury was not informed that the patents were technically essential, despite prior rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals. This misalignment suggests the need for reconsideration of the plaintiffs' request for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law