Promega Corporation v. Life Technologies Corporation, et al.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(d) provides that “a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered” may move for a new trial within “28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(d) (emphasis added). The advisory committee notes make clear that, under this subdivision (formerly, Rule 50(c)(2)), “the verdict-winner is entitled, even after entry of judgment n.o.v. against him, to move for a new trial in the usual course.” Rule 50 Advisory Committee’s Note (1963) (emphasis added). This Court has likewise recognized that “[w]here a defendant moves for n.o.v. in the trial court, the plaintiff may present, in connection with that motion or with a separate motion after n.o.v. is granted, his grounds for a new trial.” Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U.S. 317, 325 (1967) (second emphasis added). The question presented is: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, notwithstanding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(d), a verdict winner must raise new-trial arguments in its opposition to a motion for judgment as a matter of law in order to raise those arguments in a timely motion for a new trial after entry of judgment. (i)