Case Name: EBERLE DESIGN, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Electronic Devices, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Cross Appellant, v. RENO A & E, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-23
Citations: 215 F. App'x 992
Docket Number: Nos. 2006-1236, 2006-1247
Parties: EBERLE DESIGN, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Electronic Devices, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Cross Appellant, v. RENO A & E, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 215
Pages: 992–992

Head Matter:
EBERLE DESIGN, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Electronic Devices, Inc., Counterclaim Defendant-Cross Appellant, v. RENO A & E, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.
Nos. 2006-1236, 2006-1247.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Jan. 23, 2007.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 2, 2007.

Opinion:
ORDER
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant Reno A & E did not move for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence and thus failed, under then-applicable principles of Ninth Circuit law, to preserve its right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. See Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 886-87 (9th Cir.2002). Although Reno timely moved for a new trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion because the trial court did not commit legal error when instructing the jury or in its consideration of the new trial motion, and because Reno has failed to show that the record contains no evidence to support the verdict. See Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal Bank of Can., 833 F.2d 1365, 1372 (9th Cir.1987).
We dismiss the conditional cross-appeal as improperly taken, because the cross-appeal, if successful, would not expand the scope of the judgment in the cross-appellants' favor. See Mass. Inst, of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1347-48 (Fed.Cir.2006).
Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.