879 F.3d 1369
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Flexuspine sued Globus for infringing multiple patents; several claims were dismissed pretrial and the district court previously granted summary judgment of noninfringement for the ’810 patent.
- Parties submitted competing verdict forms; Flexuspine’s form included a "stop instruction" directing the jury to answer invalidity only if they found infringement; Globus’s did not.
- The district court adopted a final verdict form that included the stop instruction after in-chambers and on-the-record charge conferences; Globus did not object on the record to Question 2 or the stop instruction during the formal charge conference.
- The jury initially answered "no" to infringement but nevertheless answered the invalidity question and found the claims invalid. The court found the answers internally inconsistent, sent the jury back with a blank form to comply with the stop instruction, and the jury returned a verdict finding noninfringement and left invalidity unanswered.
- Globus moved under Rule 59(e) to amend the judgment to include the jury’s initial invalidity finding and later filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law on invalidity; the district court denied Rule 59(e), dismissed Globus’s invalidity counterclaims without prejudice, and denied Rule 50(b) as moot.
- Flexuspine cross-appealed the summary judgment on the ’810 patent; the court affirmed because Flexuspine’s infringement proof failed to satisfy an agreed claim-construction requirement that both the angled portion and the flat surfaces move obliquely to the same portion of the upper/lower bodies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Globus) | Defendant's Argument (Flexuspine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 59(e) to amend judgment to include the jury’s initial invalidity finding | The jury’s initial answers were consistent with the oral instructions; the court erred in sending the jury back and refusing to enter the invalidity verdict | The jury disregarded the unambiguous stop instruction on the verdict form and waived objections; the court properly required consistent answers | Affirmed — no manifest error; district court properly found the initial verdict internally inconsistent and acted within discretion to resubmit the form |
| Whether the district court erred in sending the jury back to resolve the inconsistent verdict | The jury followed oral instructions and could decide invalidity irrespective of infringement, so its initial answers should stand | The verdict form clearly conditioned invalidity on a finding of infringement; failing to follow that stop instruction produced an internally inconsistent verdict | Affirmed — under Fifth Circuit precedent a jury’s violation of a stop instruction renders the verdict inconsistent and resubmission was proper |
| Whether denying Rule 50(b) on invalidity was improper after dismissal of counterclaims | Even if Rule 59(e) fails, overwhelming invalidity evidence required judgment as a matter of law on invalidity | The district court dismissed invalidity counterclaims without prejudice (because Globus waived jury submission), so invalidity was no longer a live issue; Rule 50(b) was moot | Affirmed — dismissal without prejudice was within discretion; Rule 50(b) denial moot |
| Whether summary judgment of noninfringement for the ’810 patent was improper | (Flexuspine cross-appeal) The ’810 claim was infringed by accused device | Globus argued Flexuspine lacked evidence satisfying the agreed claim-construction requirement that both the angled portion and flat surfaces move obliquely to the same portion of the bodies | Affirmed — Flexuspine failed to present evidence on the second, agreed requirement, so no reasonable juror could find infringement |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Grinfas, 809 F.2d 1157 (5th Cir.) (jury disobedience to stop instruction can render verdict internally inconsistent)
- Richard v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 853 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion to refuse interrogatories answered in violation of instructions)
- Nance v. Gulf Oil Corp., 817 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir.) (resubmitting a verdict does not violate the Seventh Amendment when answers are irreconcilable)
- McKenna v. United States, 327 F.3d 839 (9th Cir.) (oral instructions may control over a summary verdict form where explained to the jury)
- McDaniel v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 987 F.2d 298 (5th Cir.) (failure to object to special issue wording waives appellate objection)
- Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 355 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.) (district court may dismiss invalidity counterclaims without prejudice when patent not infringed)
- Nystrom v. TREX Co., 339 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) (same principle on dismissal of invalidity counterclaims)
- Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83 (Sup. Ct.) (relitigating patent validity after a fair trial raises concerns and waste)
- Blonder Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (Sup. Ct.) (policy against relitigation of invalid patents)