Making the Right Moves: District Court Finds Waiver on Rule 50(b) Motion Because the Patentee Raised a Different Issue in Its Rule 50(a) Motion

July 11, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Jason Weil, Rachel J. Elsby, Ange Christiani

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently held a patentee waived its right to seek JMOL on infringement following a jury verdict of non-infringement because the patentee’s Rule 50(a) motion focused solely on the issue of validity. As a result of the district court’s ruling, the patentee is likely precluded from seeking appellate review relating to the sufficiency of the evidence of the jury’s adverse verdict on infringement.

At trial, both Plaintiff/Patentee (Deere) and Defendant/Accused Infringer (Precision Planting) brought motions for JMOL under Rule 50(a). Deere requested JMOL of only invalidity, while Precision broadly sought JMOL on essentially all issues raised at trial. The district court deferred ruling on Deere’s motion, and granted Precision’s motion in-part. Notably, the district court denied Precision’s motion for JMOL of non-infringement.

Following the district court’s rulings, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement on all asserted claims. Because the verdict form specifically instructed the jury to only reach the question of invalidity in the event it found infringement, the jury did not make any determination with respect to invalidity.

Post-verdict, Deere attempted to renew its motion for JMOL under Rule 50(b), but rather than renew its motion on invalidity (an issue not reached by the jury), Deere instead argued that it was entitled to JMOL under Rule 50(b) on the issue of infringement.

Precision disputed the appropriateness of Deere’s Rule 50(b) motion, arguing that Deere waived its right to seek JMOL of infringement because it failed to make that argument in its Rule 50(a) motion. Deere did not dispute that it failed to seek judgment of infringement under Rule 50(a), but argued that no formal motion was required because the district court stated that it was sending infringement to the jury when it denied Precision’s Rule 50(a) non-infringement motion.

The district court rejected that argument, holding a Rule 50(b) motion can only be decided on the particular grounds advanced by the movant in its own Rule 50(a) motion at the conclusion of the non-moving party’s case. Deere could not rely on Precision’s motion to avoid waiver because the standard for a party who bears the burden of proof are different from a party who does not and because a party must specify the judgment sought and supporting facts in its Rule 50(a) motion in order to preserve an issue for judgment under Rule 50(b). The district court added that it would have denied Deere’s JMOL on infringement even if not waived because there was sufficient evidence produced at trial from which a reasonably jury could find Precision had not infringed.

Importantly, the district court’s waiver determination likely extends to Plaintiff’s ability to seek appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence of infringement. See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2023 WL 2778774 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2023) (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit recently found waiver in a case involving similar circumstances where a party raised Rule 50(a) motions on certain grounds, only to appeal other grounds. Id. There, the court reasoned, “[a] party must make proper motions under Rule 50 in order to appeal an adverse verdict on grounds related to sufficiency of the evidence.” Id. at *6.

Practice Tip: It is important to challenge at the Rule 50(a) stage every aspect of a case that a party may wish to challenge in a post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion and on appeal to ensure that arguments are properly preserved both at the trial court and before the Federal Circuit.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.