Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

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

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRule 50Appellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b)Rule 59

Facts

ConAgra attempted to enforce a patent related to browning precooked meats, and Unitherm ultimately proceeded to trial on a Walker Process claim after the district court held the patent invalid and dismissed Jennie-O for lack of antitrust standing. Before the case went to the jury, ConAgra moved under Rule 50(a) for a directed verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence, and the district court denied the motion. The jury found for Unitherm. After the verdict, ConAgra did not renew its request for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and did not move for a new trial on antitrust liability under Rule 59.

Issue

Whether a court of appeals may review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a civil jury verdict and order a new trial when the losing party filed a preverdict Rule 50(a) motion but failed to file a postverdict Rule 50(b) motion and failed to seek a new trial under Rule 59.

Rule

In a civil jury trial, a party may not obtain appellate review of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, or appellate relief in the form of judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on that ground, unless the party renews its preverdict Rule 50(a) motion through a timely postverdict motion under Rule 50(b); if the party seeks a new trial, it must make an appropriate postverdict motion in the district court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal jury trial in Chicago, Nora Patel sued Lakefront Robotics LLC for breach of contract. At the close of all the evidence, Lakefront moved under Rule 50(a), arguing no reasonable jury could find breach; the judge denied the motion, the jury found for Patel, and Lakefront appealed without filing any postverdict motion.

What is the strongest argument against appellate review of Lakefront's claim that the evidence was insufficient?

Explanation. In a civil jury trial, a preverdict Rule 50(a) motion does not by itself preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge for appellate review after an adverse verdict. The majority held that absent a renewed postverdict Rule 50(b) motion, there is no basis for appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency. The denial of the Rule 50(a) motion is not itself reversible error.