Patent Law Practice Center

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in Novozymes v. Du Pont, where there was a two-judge majority and a dissent filed by Chief Judge Rader. The question dealt with whether or not the district court properly overturned the jury verdict with a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) after the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and damages in excess of $18 million. Chief Rader thought there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict, but Judges Schall and Bryson disagreed.

How can there be a difference of opinion about whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict?

Background

Novozymes A/S and Novozymes North America, Inc. (the plaintiff-appellant) appealed a decision relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,713,723 (the “’723 patent”) from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to the Federal Circuit. Novozymes sued DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, Genencor International Wisconsin, Inc., Danisco US Inc., and Danisco USA Inc. (collectively, “DuPont”) in Wisconsin alleging infringement of the ‘723 patent.

(more…)