Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. WL Gore

BARD PERIPHERAL v. WL GORE 10The district court entered an amended final judgmenton August 24, 2010, and Gore timely appealed on August25, 2010.The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1338(a), and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).DISCUSSIONWe review denial of post-trial motions for judgment asa matter of law under the applicable regional circuit law,the Ninth Circuit in this case. See Revolution Eyewear,Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358, 1370 (Fed. Cir.2009). The Ninth Circuit reviews a district court’s denialof motions for judgment as a matter of law de novo. Janesv. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2002).A “jury’s verdict must be upheld if it is supported bysubstantial evidence, . . . even if it is also possible to drawa contrary conclusion.” Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918(9th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is “relevant evidenceas reasonable minds might accept as adequate tosupport a conclusion.” Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton,212 F.3d 477, 482 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). TheNinth Circuit “disregard[s] all evidence favorable to themoving party that the jury is not required to believe, andmay not substitute its view of the evidence for that of thejury.” Johnson v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 251F.3d 1222, 1227 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marksand citations omitted). The court will not “weigh thefendant[]; there is no implied authority in thecourt’s order for any other [graft] manufacturerto follow in [Gore]’s footsteps and use the patentedinvention with the court’s imprimatur.504 F.3d 1293, 1314 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).