There are three cases that will be argued in October at the Federal Circuit that attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., a patent infringement case. In this case, the Federal Circuit will review a judgment of the Western District of Texas, which granted a partial judgment as a matter of law that asserted patents are not invalid and entered judgment on a jury verdict of infringement and no invalidity. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, CH Lighting argues the district court excluded “highly relevant, admissible evidence of invalidity” based on “the legally unsustainable notion that expert testimony cannot support a jury finding unless the facts and data on which the expert relied are admitted into evidence.” Indeed, CH Lighting argues, the district court’s ruling “contradicts Rule 703’s directive that the facts and data on which an expert relies need not even be admissible—a fortiori, they need not be actually admitted.” Additionally, CH Lighting argues, Jiaxing Super’s arguments regarding validity and infringement were contradictory. CH Lighting emphasizes that it “urged that a prior-art reference’s use of impedance distinguished it” from a patent while, by contrast, it “urged that the accused products’ use of impedance” infringed the same patent. In addition, CH Lighting argued the “damages evidence was woefully deficient.”
In Jiaxing Super’s response brief, it asserts the “district court correctly granted JMOL” that certain asserted claims were not invalid. It also contends “substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict” one claim was infringed and was not proven invalid. Finally, it argues, “Defendants’ attacks on the damages award are misguided.
CH Lighting makes several arguments in its reply brief. For example, it contends “Super identifies no authority supporting the district court’s theory that expert testimony cannot constitute substantial evidence unless underlying facts and data are themselves admitted into evidence.” Indeed, it argues, Super’s “theory defies Rule 703 and an array of precedent.”
This case attracted an amicus brief from the Zhejiang Province Association of Lighting Industry in support of CH Lighting and reversal. Notably, both the appellants and appellee are members of the Association. The Association argues that “technologies disclosed and claimed in the ‘125 patent and the ‘540 patent are obvious” and that “validating the ‘125 and ‘540 patents would be grave.”
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Thursday, October 10. We will keep track of this case and report on any developments.