Legal Document

546 U.S. 394 (2006) UNITHERM FOOD SYSTEMS, INC. v. SWIFT-ECKRICH, INC., DBA CONAGRA REFRIGERATED FOODS No. 04-597. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 2, 2005. Decided January 23, 2006. *396 Burck Bailey argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were Greg A. Castro, Jay P. Walters, and Dennis D. Brown. Malcolm L. Stewart States as amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Hungar, Marleigh Dover, August Flentje. Robert Schroeder respondent. John R. Reese, Leigh Otsuka Curran, Passarelli. JUSTICE THOMAS delivered opinion Court. Ordinarily, a party in civil jury trial that believes evidence is legally insufficient to support an adverse verdict will seek judgment matter law by filing motion pursuant Federal Rule Civil Procedure 50(a) before submission case jury, then (if not granted subsequently decides against party) 50(b). In this case, however, respondent filed verdict, but did file 50(b) after verdict. Nor request new under 59. The Appeals nevertheless proceeded review sufficiency and, upon finding was insufficient, remanded trial. Because our cases addressing requirements 50 compel contrary result, we reverse. *397 I genesis underlying litigation ConAgra's attempt enforce its patent "A Method Browning Precooked Whole Muscle Meat Products," Patent 5,952,027 ('027 patent). early 2000, ConAgra issued general warning companies who sold equipment processes browning precooked meats explaining it intended "`aggressively protect all [its] rights [the '027] patent.'" 375 F.3d 1341, 1344 (CA Fed. 2004). Petitioner Unitherm such processes, receive warning. also contacted direct competitors meat business, announcing "`making '027 corresponding patents may issue available license at royalty rate 10¢ per pound.'" Id., 1345. Jennie-O, competitor, received correspondence undertook investigation determine responsibilities with regard patent. Jennie-O determined process had purchased from same described further invalid because Unitherm's president invented six years application. Consistent these determinations, jointly sued Western District Oklahoma. As relevant here, sought declaration unenforceable, alleged violated § 2 Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, amended, 15 U.S.C. attempting obtained committing fraud Trademark Office (PTO). See Walker Process Equipment, Inc. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 172, 174 (1965) (holding "the enforcement procured be violative Act provided *398 other elements necessary are present"). construed based prior public use sale therein. 35 102(b). After dismissing lack antitrust standing, allowed claim proceed Prior court's moved directed legal insufficiency evidence. denied motion.[1] returned Unitherm, neither renewed 50(b), nor liability 59.[2] On appeal Circuit, maintained there sustain jury's Although Circuit has concluded party's "failure present district court post-verdict precludes appellate evidence," Biodex Corp. Loredan Biomedical, Inc., 946 F.2d 850, 862 (1991), instant bound apply Tenth F.3d, 1365, n. 7 ("On most issues related motions . generally regional circuit unless precise *399 being appealed pertains uniquely law"). Under law, failed postverdict challenging nonetheless raise appeal, so long jury. Cummings Motors 365 944, 950-951 (2004). Notably, only relief circumstance 951. Freed examine evidence, that, although presented sufficient determination attempted through PTO, 1362, remaining claim. 1365 ("Unitherm any economic capable sustaining asserted market, little aspect Section claim"). Accordingly, vacated favor We certiorari, 543 1186 (2005), now II sets forth procedural establishes two stages challengesprior entry judgment. allows challenge authorizes grant discretion: "(a) JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. "(1) If during been fully heard no evidentiary basis reasonable find issue, *400 respect or defense cannot controlling defeated without favorable issue. "(2) Motions made time Such shall specify facts which moving entitled judgment." contrast, renewing "(b) RENEWING MOTION FOR AFTER TRIAL; ALTERNATIVE NEW TRIAL. If, reason, does close considered have submitted action subject later deciding questions raised motion. movant renew than 10 days judgmentand alternatively join ruling motion, may: if returned: "(A) allow stand, "(B) order trial, "(C) law...." This addressed implications failure several occasions variety contexts. "[i]n absence motion" "appellate [is] power *401 enter one permitted stand." Cone West Virginia Pulp Paper Co., 330 212, 218 (1947). similarly deprives where Globe Liquor Co. San Roman, 332 571 (1948), expressly reserved preverdict returned, Johnson New York, N. H. 344 48 (1952). "[d]etermination whether should entered calls first instance judge saw witnesses feel printed transcript can impart."[3]Cone, supra, 216. Moreover, "requirement timely application idle "is essential part rule, firmly grounded principles fairness." Johnson, 53. foregoing authorities lead us reverse below. Respondent correctly points out address opposed (as *402 here). But distinction immaterial. Court's observations about necessity benefits input stage, equal force seeking simply Cone, permits exercise discretion choose between ordering entering judgment, "appraisal bona fides claims litigants great value reaching conclusion granted." U.S., 216 (emphasis added). Similarly, pursue particular avenue namely, when complied Rule's requesting 54 ("Respondent set aside within required It comply permission given move o. situation favor").[4] *403 Despite straightforward language employed Liquor, maintains those dictate affirmance each secured appellants Court, establish their entitlement solely 213 (noting trial);[5]Globe 572 ("The *404 respondents ground many contested fact"). Indeed, virtue "within 50(b)." 54. outcomes merely underscore holding todaya makes appropriate court. Our respondent's forecloses validated purported denial initial matter, unequivocally motionnamely, lawcannot Here, Courtnamely, law. Rather, seeks if, litigant foreclosed motioni. e., judgmentthen surely could short, never thus forfeited right do appeal. Yakus States, 321 414, 444 (1944) ("No principle more familiar *405 make assertion tribunal having jurisdiction it"). text confirms option That provides "ruling even inclined arguments absent Rule. Consequently, powerless. determine" "there [a] [a given] issue," "may ." (Emphasis added.) Thus, while concludes so. To contrary, courts are, anything, encouraged submit rather granting motions. Wright Miller explain: "Even desirable refrain despite fact would possible holds go entire must had. hand, submits though thinks final *406 expedited greatly. agrees appraisal returns end. brings different Then error need For reason repeatedly said usually take pass motion." 9A Practice 2533, 319 (footnote omitted). form error. discretion, accordance accepted practice permitting here counsel's 50(b).[6] *407 * reasons, hold since specified Appeals. reversed.[7] ordered. STEVENS, whom KENNEDY joins, dissenting. Murphy's applies lawyers well pilots. Even expert occasionally blunder. Congress preserved federal appeals courts' correct plain error, omission ordinarily give rise binding waiver. my view, authority limited explicit statute rule. spirit Rules favors preservation avoid manifestly unjust results exceptional cases. 48, 62 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) ("`Procedure means; full, exact substantive end'" (quoting Pound, Etiquette Justice, 3 Proceedings Neb. St. Bar Assn. 231 (1909))). overriding duty obey statutory commands unambiguously express intent areas procedure special expertise. Today, relying primarily decided March 1947, 1948, *408 571, "powerless" supporting petitioner's proper 59 Ante, 405. majority's inconsistent enacted just months decided. statute, remains effect today, provides: "The affirm, modify, vacate, decree, lawfully brought review, remand order, require proceedings circumstances." 28 2106. Nothing limits courts; directing favor, purport strip judgments waiver forfeiture effect. Cf. ante, 404-405. settled litigant's argument not, command, preclude considering arguments. Singleton Wulff, 428 106, 121 (1976). Arguments entertained, example, consideration prevent manifest injustice. Ibid.[*] *409 reasons articulated 216, unfair abuse lost below Likewise, "just circumstances" Finally, rebuff, grounds forfeiture, None propositions rests, "power" circumstances, divine determination. respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] contends pertained element claim, encompass conclude petitioner prevail irrespective scope assume aspects see Amendments Procedure, 134 F. 525, 687 (1991) ("A post-trial advanced pre-verdict motion"). [2] While damages, establishing bearing case. [3] Neither Neely Martin K. Eby Constr. 386 317 (1967), Weisgram Marley 528 440 (2000), undermine benefit may, certain reverses circumstances opportunity consider propriety reiterate input, cautioning "`constantly alert' `the judge's first-hand knowledge witnesses, testimony, issues.'" 443 Neely, 325). [4] dissent's suggestion 2106 notwithstanding dissent observes post, 408 (opinion J.), fails note Johnson. explicitly reaffirmed earlier cases, concluding "in ten reception [Rule 50] forbids 50. observed "broad enough include appeal," 322, "make clear loser strictly 50(b)," 325. Contrary suggestion, broad exercised consistent interpreted approach Seventh Amendment concerns. implication interpretation free regardless appellant event ever ruled former squarely Slocum York Life Ins. 228 364 (1913), latter explanation Baltimore Carolina Line, Redman, 295 654, 658 (1935) (explaining "under pertinent rules common respecting itself defendant, cut off plaintiff's unwaived jury" added)). drafted concerns mind. C. Miller, 2522, pp. 244-246 (2d ed. 1995) (hereinafter Practice). [5] nature difficult ascertain description properly objected admission "for [on inadmissible evidence] newly-discovered evidence." 153 576, 580 (CA4 1946). disturb Appeals' formed movant's prejudicial 215. [6] reliance Circuit's credibly maintain wanted And, recognized, obtain 951 therefore every incentive requirements. reject contention impermissibly retroactive. Harper Dept. Taxation, 509 86, 97 (1993) ("[W]e scarcely permit shift spring according equities individual parties' actual old rule harm retroactive rule" (internal quotation marks brackets omitted)). [7] reconsideration light Phillips AWH 415 1303 2005). already petition rehearing raising [*] suggests 402-403, 4. disagree analysis respects. First, might implicated made, triggered automatic reservation "legal questions," Civ. Proc. reservation, turn, averted problem, 654 (1935). Second, imposes greater restriction circumstances; "[a]s far Amendment's concerned, province enters does." 317, 322 (1967).

Classification Label: 8