This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sued D seeking a declaration that D's patent was invalid and unenforceable and that D had violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by attempting to enforce a patent that was obtained by committing fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The District Court determined that the patent was invalid based on P's prior public use and sale of the process described therein. The District Court allowed P's Walker Process claim to proceed to trial. Prior to the court's submission of the case to the jury, D moved for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) based on legal insufficiency of the evidence. The District Court denied that motion. The jury returned a verdict for P and D neither renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) nor moved for a new trial on antitrust liability pursuant to Rule 59. D appealed. Under Tenth Circuit law, a party that has failed to file a postverdict motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence may nonetheless raise such a claim on appeal, so long as that party filed a Rule 50(a) motion prior to submission of the case to the jury. The Federal Circuit concluded that, although P had presented sufficient evidence to support a determination that D had attempted to enforce a patent that it had obtained through fraud on the PTO, P had failed to present evidence sufficient to support the remaining elements of its antitrust claim. The court vacated the jury's judgment and remanded for a new trial. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.