Published on:

Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet: JMOL Denied – Circumstantial Evidence of Infringement Sufficient to Support Verdict

By

Becton Dickinson and Company won a jury verdict back in 2004 against Tyco Healthcare Group, but the Court granted defendant’s post-trial motion and allowed the infringement case to be re-tried. Following the retrial in November 2007, Tyco Healthcare Group LP was again found liable and subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) arguing that the jury’s finding was not supported by the evidence. Becton Dickinson and Company v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, C.A. No. 02-1694-GMS, Memo. (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2008). The Court denied defendant’s motion. Id. Of note, the Court agreed that the direct evidence of infringement proffered by the plaintiff was not sufficient to support an infringement verdict. Id. at 6-7 n.2. That being said, however, the Court in denying the motion, relied on Federal Circuit precedent which holds “[T]here is no requirement that direct evidence be introduced,” and the circumstantial evidence presented by plaintiff’s fact and expert witnesses was sufficient to support the verdict. Id. at 6.

Becton Dickinson and Company v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, C.A. No. 02-1694-GMS, Memo. (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2008).

By
Posted in: Gregory M. Sleet
Published on:
Updated:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information