UNITHERM FOOD SYSTEMS, INC. V. SWIFT-ECKRICH, INC.
546 U.S. 394 (2006)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Unitherm (P) appealed a judgment, which granted Swift (D) a new trial despite the lack of a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
FACTS: P sued D seeking a declaration that D's patent was invalid and unenforceable and that D had violated 2 of the Sherman Act by attempting to enforce a patent that was obtained by committing fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The District Court determined that the patent was invalid based on P's prior public use and sale of the process described therein. The District Court allowed P's Walker Process claim to proceed to trial. Prior to the court's submission of the case to the jury, D moved for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) based on legal insufficiency of the evidence. The District Court denied that motion. The jury returned a verdict for P and D neither renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), nor moved for a new trial on antitrust liability pursuant to Rule 59. D appealed. Under Tenth Circuit law, a party that has failed to file a postverdict motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence may nonetheless raise such a claim on appeal, so long as that party filed a Rule 50(a) motion prior to submission of the case to the jury. The Federal Circuit concluded that, although P had presented sufficient evidence to support a determination that D had attempted to enforce a patent that it had obtained through fraud on the PTO, P had failed to present evidence sufficient to support the remaining elements of its antitrust claim. The court vacated the jury's judgment and remanded for a new trial. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment