Jury Verdict Set Aside

Judge Gilstrap granted the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, setting aside the $6.6 million jury verdict that the plaintiff obtained last June. The reason was the court’s recent determination that there was not substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict that the defendant’s products were not sold in the US. The tale is a lengthy one.

Bad Hair Day: JMOL & MNT in Trademark Case

My wife took out a restraining order preventing me from running a picture of her hair in the ’80s for use in this post about the I&I Hair v. Beauty Plus case. My sister, however, wasn’t as quick, so it’s this 1989 shot of us and our hair that introduces this order by Judge Lynn granting part of the defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and cutting the jury award from $2.57 million to $0.07 million.

I am [in the] GROOT [Processor]

Three postverdict orders in this case dealing with JMOLs, new trials (damages,  infringement and invalidity) & interest raise somewhat intertwined issues.  What they didn’t raise was sufficient grounds for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial in derogation of the jury’s verdict.  (In this case GROOT is a processor, specification or widget of some kind that the experts felt either did or didn’t have or do something, so I’m not totally making up the reference).

Post-Trial Motions

Yes, post-trial motions and collections of World War II carrier aircraft are both favorite topics of mine, but that’s not why you’re seeing a collection of TBD-1s at the top of this post. You’re seeing it because the process of researching and building multiple iterations of the same subject but each with its own variations is analogous to Judge Sean Jordan’s order resolving multiple post trial motions in this 10-plaintiff employment discrimination case, which required careful analysis of the evidence adduced at trial as to each claim against each defendant.

Omnibus “Post-Trial” Conference Order

Why should pretrial conferences have all the fun? The plaintiff’s request for supplemental damages and pre- and post-judgment interest was granted, and its request for an ongoing royalty granted in part in that the court set the rate at the rate the jury found, but declined to enhance it. The court did not enter judgment, and entered a briefing schedule for postjudgment motions.

WSOU JMOL #2: The Perils of Claim Construction at Trial

Several weeks ago I posted on Judge Albright’s grant of JMOL against plaintiff WSOU during a trial in October (he did the same thing against the same plaintiff in a trial in February). The written opinion on WSOU JMOL #2 came out yesterday and explains the Court’s rationale, which was based on a claim construction issue that arose during trial.