Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.

Supreme Court of United States
546 U.S. 394 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A party's failure to file a post-verdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) forecloses appellate review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. An appellate court is without power to direct a judgment as a matter of law or to order a new trial on that ground if such a motion was not made in the district court.

Facts:

ConAgra obtained U.S. Patent No. 5,952,027 for a method of browning precooked meats and began warning competitors of its intent to enforce it.
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. (Unitherm) sold similar meat browning processes.
Jennie-O, a customer of Unitherm, investigated ConAgra's patent and determined that Unitherm's president had invented the process six years before ConAgra filed its patent application.
Based on this, Jennie-O and Unitherm jointly sued ConAgra.
In their lawsuit, they sought a declaration that ConAgra's patent was invalid and alleged ConAgra violated §2 of the Sherman Act by attempting to enforce a patent obtained by fraud (a 'Walker Process' claim).

Procedural Posture:

Unitherm and Jennie-O sued ConAgra in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
The District Court declared the patent invalid and allowed Unitherm's antitrust claim to proceed to a jury trial.
Before the case was submitted to the jury, ConAgra filed a Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the evidence was legally insufficient, which the District Court denied.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Unitherm.
ConAgra did not file a renewed post-verdict motion under Rule 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law or a Rule 59 motion for a new trial on antitrust liability.
ConAgra, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Applying Tenth Circuit precedent, the Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, found it lacking, vacated the judgment, and remanded for a new trial.
Unitherm, as petitioner, was granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a party's failure to file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) preclude an appellate court from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence and ordering a new trial, even if the party filed a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Thomas

No. A party is not entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal unless it has filed a post-verdict motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). The Court reasoned that its precedents, including Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., establish that a post-verdict motion is a mandatory prerequisite for appellate review of an evidence sufficiency challenge. This motion gives the trial judge, who has the 'feel of the case,' the first opportunity to decide whether a new trial or judgment is warranted. This principle applies with equal force whether the appellant seeks judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The denial of a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion is not an appealable 'error' but rather a discretionary decision by the trial court to allow the jury to first render a verdict.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. An appellate court retains the power to order a new trial even if a Rule 50(b) motion was not filed. The dissent argued that 28 U.S.C. § 2106 provides a broad statutory grant of authority to appellate courts to order any relief that is 'just under the circumstances,' a power not explicitly limited by Rule 50(b). The failure to file the motion is a forfeiture, not a jurisdictional bar, which should allow the court of appeals to correct a plain error and prevent a manifest injustice. While it might be an abuse of discretion for an appellate court to grant relief in such circumstances, it is not 'powerless' to do so.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies a strict procedural requirement for preserving legal arguments for appeal, resolving circuit splits on the issue. It reinforces the principle that the trial court must be given the first opportunity to correct alleged errors after a verdict, promoting judicial efficiency and respecting the trial judge's unique perspective. For litigators, the case serves as a critical and unforgiving reminder that failing to file a Rule 50(b) motion constitutes a fatal waiver of any right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, whether seeking outright judgment or a new trial.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature