Judge Ezra denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law and intertwined motion for new trial in this copyright infringement case.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to FRCP 50(b), finding that substantial evidence exists supporting the jury’s verdict on each of the grounds raised, and that none of the grounds compel setting aside the jury’s verdict or granting a new trial.
Judge Yeakel denied the Rule 50(b) motion in a copyright case, finding that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s determinations.
In another order arising out of litigation involving the same parties, Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, and for new trial and/or remittitur.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s motion for new trial in this case in which the Marshall jury awarded the plaintiff a one-time lump sum of $4.3 million as a reasonable royalty on September 16, 2022.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law, letting the jury’s award of $75,229 stand. In a separate order, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law, he found that the defendant had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence its inequitable conduct defense.
Judge Albright denied the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for new trial, and granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for supplemental damages, ongoing royalty and enhancement of postverdict damages. The 49 page opinion is a compendium of what did, didn’t, and should and shouldn’t have happened at trial.
Judge Mazzant denied the defendants’ attempts to set aside the jury’s verdict in this trademark/RICO case, and directed the parties to bear their own costs of court.
Judge Albright granted the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law yesterday in a patent trial in Waco.
At the recent hearing on postverdict motions in this case, Judge Albright passed on the defendant’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial, as well as its motion regarding equitable estoppel. He also considered the plaintiff’s amended bill of costs, motion to amend the judgment to include supplemental damages and interest, and motion for enhanced damages. Labcorp’s motion to amend the judgment and for additional relief on its claim of equitable estoppel was denied – the rest will be the subject of a forthcoming order.