In Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., [2017-1188, 2017-1189] (January 19, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s decisions\u00a0denying Globus\u2019s Rule 59(e) motion, denying as\u00a0moot its Rule 50(b) motion, and granting summary\u00a0judgment of noninfringement.<\/p>\n
Globus complained that the court did not decide the validity of Flexuspine’s patent. but over a month before trial\u00a0the parties submitted a joint proposed pre-trial order along with proposed jury instructions and verdict forms\u00a0from each party. Flexuspine\u2019s proposed verdict form\u00a0included a \u201cstop instruction\u201d which conditioned the submission\u00a0of invalidity on an affirmative finding of infringement, while\u00a0Globus\u2019s proposed verdict form did not.\u00a0\u00a0On the second
\nday of trial, the parties submitted proposed joint final jury\u00a0instructions but competing verdict forms. Again, Flexuspine\u2019s\u00a0amended proposed verdict form continued to\u00a0include the same stop instruction, while Globus\u2019s amended
\nproposed verdict form did not condition the invalidity\u00a0question on an infringement finding.<\/p>\n
The court finalized the jury instructions, and\u00a0the district court afforded the parties\u00a0an opportunity to object to the final jury instructions and
\nverdict form on the record. The district court went page-by-page through
\nthe final instructions and the verdict form asking the\u00a0parties if they had any objections. Neither party objected.<\/p>\n
The jury returned the verdict form, indicating that the patent was invalid, but the district court determined that the jury had\u00a0not filled out the verdict form correctly.\u00a0The district court instructed the jury to retire again\u00a0with a blank verdict form, review the verdict form, and\u00a0return a verdict consistent with both questions asked and\u00a0the district court\u2019s written instructions on the verdict
\nform. The court then asked, \u201c[d]oes either party object to\u00a0the Court having sent the jury back to re-execute the\u00a0verdict form consistent with each instruction included\u00a0therein?\u201d In response, neither party lodged a formal\u00a0objection. Globus stated, \u201c[y]our Honor, I was not present\u00a0at the charge conference but I\u2014as I understand it, or as I\u00a0thought I understood it, a jury could still be allowed to
\npass on the validity of patents even in the absence of a\u00a0finding of infringement.\u201d The court responded\u00a0that it had reviewed the verdict form with the parties and
\nno formal objection had been made at the on-the-record\u00a0charge conference.
\nShortly thereafter, the jury returned a verdict in accordance\u00a0with the district court\u2019s instructions. This\u00a0verdict found the claims not to be infringed and left the
\nother questions unanswered.\u00a0\u00a0It was at this point,\u00a0after the jury returned its final verdict without answering\u00a0the validity or damages questions, that Globus lodged its\u00a0first formal objection.<\/p>\n
Globus filed a Rule 59(e)\u00a0motion requesting that the judgment be amended to
\ninclude the jury\u2019s invalidity verdict, and a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a\u00a0matter of law on invalidity, both of which the district court denied.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit declined to disturb the\u00a0district court\u2019s proper exercise of its discretion.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that Globus did not object to the verdict form, and\u00a0the extent that there was any conflict between\u00a0the verdict form and jury instructions, the district court\u00a0clearly instructed the jury on which
\ninstructions should control when it asked the jury to\u00a0retire again with a blank verdict form and return a verdict\u00a0consistent with both the questions asked and the stop\u00a0instructions on the verdict form.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., [2017-1188, 2017-1189] (January 19, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s decisions\u00a0denying Globus\u2019s Rule 59(e) motion, denying as\u00a0moot its Rule 50(b) motion, and granting summary\u00a0judgment of noninfringement. Globus complained that the court … Continue reading