February 13, 2018
Authored and Edited by Christopher B. McKinley; Lillian R. Phares; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., Nos. 17-1188, 17-1189 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision denying motions to amend the judgment to include an invalidity determination.
Flexuspine had sued Globus for infringing patents covering spinal implants in the Eastern District of Texas. At trial, the district court adopted a verdict form proposed by Flexuspine that included a “stop instruction,” which instructed jurors to only answer invalidity questions if they first answered affirmatively to prior infringement questions. Globus did not object to the verdict form.
The jury, however, initially ignored the “stop instruction” and returned verdicts of both noninfringement and invalidity. The court then instructed the jury to follow the “stop instruction,” and the jury returned a verdict of noninfringement, but not invalidity. After judgement of noninfringement was entered, Globus moved to amend the judgment to add a judgment of invalidity. The district court denied the motion, and Globus appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court acted within its discretion to instruct the jury to follow the “stop instruction” because Globus did not timely object to the verdict form. The Court further determined that Globus’s invalidity challenge was submitted to the jury as an affirmative defense and not a counterclaim, so no jury answer was required.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
IP Updates
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 2024
Prosecution First Blog
USPTO Issues Proposed Rulemaking Notice Relating to Terminal Disclaimer Practice
May 10, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
May 3, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.