Fredric N. Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc.

Following a five-day trial, a jury found that Puma Biotechnology defamed Dr. Fredric Eshelman by falsely accusing him of committing fraud. The jury awarded Dr. Eshelman $15.85 million in compensatory damages and $6.5 million in punitive damages. Puma appealed, raising classic sufficiency of the evidence arguments, namely, that the question of damages “never should have made it to the jury” because there was no “proof of harm whatsoever.” A panel of the Fourth Circuit agreed, holding that “there is no evidence whatsoever of actual harm sufficient to support the damages award.” App.15. Puma’s sufficiency of the evidence arguments never should have been considered on appeal in the first place because Puma did not move for judgment as a matter of law in the district court either during trial (under Rule 50(a)) or after the verdict was returned (under Rule 50(b)). The Fourth Circuit’s decision flouts this Court’s holding in Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404 (2006), that a defendant’s “failure to comply with [FRCP] 50 forecloses its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” The decision below also conflicts with the decisions of several other circuits holding that Unitherm applies with full force to sufficiency of the evidence challenges to damage awards. The question presented is: Under Unitherm and the Federal Rules, can a defendant who did not file a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law in the district court nonetheless raise a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to damages on appeal?