At the jury trial in ArcherDX, LLC v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, C.A. No. 19-1019-MN (D. Del.), the plaintiffs argued for $752,006 in U.S. royalties, and the jury awarded $1,593,762.
The higher number happened to exactly match the $752,006 they asked for for U.S. royalties, plus the lost profits number:
The $1,593,762 U.S. royalty award, however, is much higher than the estimate provided by Plaintiffs’ expert, and, in fact is equivalent to the expert’s suggested award for lost profits ($841,756) plus U.S. royalties ($752,006).
The parties both agreed that it was a mistake, and that the jury had intended to award the $752,006 that plaintiffs had asked for.
Plaintiffs, however, refused to give in, arguing that the defendants waived their right to object by failing to do so before the jury was excused. The Court rejected that argument:
Plaintiffs . . . contend that Qiagen waived its objection by failing to object to the verdict before the jury was excused. (See id.). In support of this argument, Plaintiffs cite Frank C. Pollara Grp., LLC v. Ocean View Inv. Holding, LLC, 784 F.3d 177, 190-91 (3d Cir. 2015). In Pollara, however, the court held, “if a party fails to object to an inconsistency in a general verdict before the jury is excused, that party waives any objection in that regard.” Id. In Pollara, the issue was that the verdict was facially inconsistent. Id. (“Appellants . . . complain that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent because its finding of intentional misrepresentation by Cheng precludes a finding of negligent misrepresentation by OMEI.”). Here, Defendants argue that remittitur is appropriate not because of an inconsistent verdict but because the verdict is unsupported by the evidence and the result of mistake. Plaintiffs have not cited to any case law in which the rule in Pollara is applied to cases like the one before the Court.
There simply is no evidentiary basis to support the $1,593,762 U.S. royalty award. And given that both parties agree the jury award was the result of a mistake, the Court will grant remittitur of the jury’s award for U.S. royalties to the amount estimated by Plaintiffs’ witness (the highest amount presented to the jury): $752,006.
The Court also offered—because it apparently had to—to provide plaintiffs a new trial on these damages:
Plaintiffs may either accept the remittitur or receive a new trial on these damages. See Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 716 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[T]he court must offer a new trial as an alternative to a reduction in the award” when remittitur is due to insufficient evidence.).
Something tells me the plaintiffs aren't going to want to re-try damages where they already got the maximum amount they asked for.
This dispute worked out well for defendants, but it's still a good example of why you really need to be on your toes when the jury delivers its verdict, and be ready to object if there are issues like this. It sometimes works out OK even without objection (and I've been in another case like that as well), but it's certainly better to not have to brief the waiver issue at all.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
