Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
946 F.2d 850, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1252 (1991)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Biodex Corporation (plaintiff) was the assignee of two patents, Patent No. 4,628,694 (the 694 patent) and Patent No. 4,628,910 (the 910 patent). Biodex filed a suit in federal district court alleging devices manufactured by Loredan Biomedical, Inc. (Loredan) (defendant) infringed on the 694 and 910 patents. Loredan argued during the jury trial that the 694 patent was invalid and that the devices manufactured by Loredan did not infringe on the 910 patent. Biodex moved orally for a directed verdict at the close of evidence, but the district court did not issue a ruling. The jury found that the 694 patent was invalid and that Loredan did not infringe on the 910 patent. The district court entered the jury’s verdict as the final judgment in the case. Biodex did not make any postverdict motions. Biodex appealed, arguing that neither of the jury’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Loredan argued that even if substantial evidence did not support the judgments, Biodex’s failure to make a postverdict motion resulted in a failure to preserve the issues for appellate review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clevenger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.