## Facts

- Biodex Corporation, assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 4,628,910 and 4,691,694 covering muscle exercise and rehabilitation devices, sued Loredan Biomedical, Inc. and its CEO for patent infringement in the Eastern District of California.
- Loredan asserted that the ’694 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on an offer for sale of the claimed subject matter more than one year before the application filing date.
- Loredan also contended it did not infringe the ’910 patent because certain asserted means-plus-function limitations did not cover (and were not equivalent to) structures in Loredan’s devices.
- Biodex orally moved for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence; the district court did not rule on the motion.
- The jury found the ’694 patent invalid under § 102(b) and found no infringement of the ’910 patent.
- The district court entered judgment on the verdict; Biodex filed no post-verdict motions under Rule 50(b) and no motion for a new trial under Rule 59.
- On appeal, Biodex challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both the invalidity and noninfringement findings.

## Issues

1. Whether an appellant may obtain appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict when it failed to file any post-verdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) or 59.
2. Whether an unruled-upon directed-verdict motion at the close of evidence preserves substantial-evidence challenges to jury findings of invalidity and noninfringement.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held that Biodex’s failure to file post-verdict motions barred appellate review of its challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.
- Because the sufficiency challenges were not preserved, the court accepted the jury’s findings of § 102(b) invalidity for the ’694 patent and noninfringement of the ’910 patent and did not reach the merits of those disputes.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict must preserve the issue through the Rule 50 mechanism, including a post-verdict renewed motion under Rule 50(b), and/or a Rule 59 motion for a new trial.
- An appellate court generally cannot review evidentiary sufficiency without a post-verdict motion because there is no trial-court ruling on the renewed request for judgment as a matter of law to review.
- Failure to comply with these preservation requirements prevents reexamination of the jury’s factual findings on appeal, even in patent cases.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment because Biodex did not file post-verdict motions required to preserve sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, foreclosing appellate review of the jury’s invalidity and noninfringement verdicts.


Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc., 946 F.2d 850 (Fed. Cir. 1991)