## Facts

- ConAgra held a patent covering a process for browning precooked meats.
- Unitherm claimed its president invented the process years before ConAgra’s patent application and sought a declaration of patent invalidity and damages for monopolization under a Walker Process–type § 2 Sherman Act theory based on alleged fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office.
- The district court found the patent invalid and allowed the antitrust claim to be tried to a jury.
- Before the case was submitted to the jury, ConAgra moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), arguing the antitrust evidence was legally insufficient; the district court denied the motion.
- The jury returned a verdict for Unitherm on the antitrust claim.
- After the verdict, ConAgra did not renew its motion under Rule 50(b) and did not move for a new trial under Rule 59.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence (relying on regional circuit practice), found it insufficient, vacated the judgment, and ordered a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court of appeals may review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a civil jury verdict when the appellant did not file a postverdict Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.
2. Whether a court of appeals may order a new trial for evidentiary insufficiency when the appellant also failed to seek a new trial under Rule 59.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit.
- The Court held that, without a postverdict Rule 50(b) motion (or a Rule 59 motion), an appellate court may not review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict.
- The Court rejected the view that an appellate court may conduct sufficiency review and limit relief to a new trial when Rule 50(b) was not filed.
- The Federal Circuit lacked a basis to reach ConAgra’s sufficiency challenge and therefore erred in vacating the verdict and ordering a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 50 establishes a two-step method for preserving a sufficiency challenge: a preverdict motion under Rule 50(a) and a postverdict renewed motion under Rule 50(b).
- Filing a Rule 50(b) motion is a prerequisite to appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency after a jury verdict; a Rule 50(a) motion alone does not preserve the issue for appeal.
- When no Rule 50(b) motion is filed, the court of appeals lacks authority to direct entry of judgment contrary to the verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence.
- The absence of a Rule 50(b) motion also leaves the court of appeals without authority to order a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient.
- Postverdict motions under Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 protect the district court’s first-instance role in evaluating the evidentiary record and exercising discretion as to appropriate relief.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a party’s failure to file a postverdict Rule 50(b) motion (or seek a new trial under Rule 59) bars appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a civil jury verdict, including review limited to granting a new trial for insufficiency.


Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006)