Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 FEBRUARY 2018

Failure To Object To Jury Instructions Kills Invalidity Counterclaim

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In Flexuspine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's decision denying motions to amend the judgment to include an invalidity determination.

United StatesIntellectual Property

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

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from