The defense win stands.
The initial round of JMOL rulings during trial is not always reflected in a written order, making this one worth reviewing.
But if we’re analogizing procedural motions to food, nothing says Thanksgiving dinner like JMOLs – so here’s David Coale’s latest slide show on postverdict motions from the State Bar’s Advanced Civil Appellate Course.
I recall a district judge, who will remain nameless, once saying that he didn’t mind seeing the word “reversed.” It was the “and remanded” part that he hated. This case shows why.
This sunny day I’m celebrating my tulip poplar’s budding out with these JMOL rulings (including lots of interesting fees discussion) following a jury verdict.
This order addresses the renewed motions for JMOL following the trial in this case, as well as a motion to stay pending reexam and a large remittitur.
Some time back I posted about this very interesting gym locker dispute. Following
Earlier this year a Marshall jury in visiting CAFC Judge Bill Bryson’s court rendered a $20 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff against defendant Eli Lilly. Several weeks ago Judge Bryson followed up with an order explaining his reasons for several decisions during trial.
Judge Bryson’s order is an example of what I referred to in my talk about JMOLs week before last at Horseshoe Bay as a “whale fall” – the sort of order that can take weeks to fully digest, but if you’re interested in the subject of getting a JMOL on a plaintiff’s claims of willful infringement or on when certain jury instructions are appropriate or how prejudgment interest is calculated it’s worth it.
Our story begins with the defense counsel rising at trial to assert a JMOL as to the plaintiff’s claim of willful infringement…
We have another set of JMOL rulings as to motions filed by a losing defendant, which, on the bright side maintained its streak.