of prior art to render a claim invalid, you have to find every element of that claim in that piece of prior art. [...] Q: Okay. So we have on the screen claim [11] of the ’886 patent. And you’ve got some-some boxes on the right. Are those check boxes? A: That’s correct. So I’ll check each of those off.., as I show you where those elements are met in the Steinberg reference. Trial Tr. at 1338:24 to 1339:18-23, Motorola identifies no testimony by Dr. Bovik or any other witness that addresses the alleged obviousness of the face detection patents. See Motorola Oppo. at 15-16. Without a defensible finding of anticipation or any testimony directed at Motorola’s purported obviousness theory, the obviousness verdict is not supported by substantial evidence. See InTouch, 751 F.3d at 1348-49 (<HOLDING>), Fujifilm’s motion for JMOL on this issue is
holding that judgment as a matter of law was proper when the plaintiff did not present any evidence that the defendant was motivated by the eeoc complaint knowledge is necessary to establish causation but it is not sufficient holding that judgment on the pleadings will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that there are no material issues of fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding that patentee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law of nonobviousness where defendants expert did not identify sufficient reasons or motivations to combine the asserted prior references focus on the relevant time frame or consider any objective evidence of nonobviousness holding that relevant information has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other matter sic that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case holding that a sentencer may not refuse to consider as a matter of law any relevant mitigating evidence