PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC. v. TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

Filing 359

Order to Vacate #354 Judgment, SCHEDULING ORDER (post-trial motions pursuant to Rule 50 or Rule 59 due by 4/6/2018, responses must be filed within 30 days of filing of motion) signed by Honorable Thomas D Schroeder on 3/21/2018. (ncha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
________________________________ )
)
PRECISION FABRICS GROUP, INC., )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

7:17-cv-3037

7:17-cv-3038

ORDER
The purpose of this Order is to address the establishment of
a

briefing

schedule

for

the

outstanding

motions

by

Tietex

International, Ltd. (“Tietex”) and Precision Fabrics Group, Inc.
(“PFG”) for judgment as a matter of law made during trial pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and as to which the court
reserved ruling.

The court held a telephonic hearing on March 19,

2018, to discuss the parties’ views on the establishment of a
briefing schedule for these and any other post-trial motions.
A jury trial was held from March 5 through 9, 2018.

At the

close of PFG’s evidence and at the close of all evidence, Tietex
orally moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a)
as to literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of
equivalents,
profits.
Rule

willful

infringement,

and

PFG’s

claim

for

lost

At the close of all evidence, PFG also moved pursuant to

50(a)

for

judgment

as

a

matter

of

law

as

to

literal

infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and
willful infringement.

(Doc. 345.)1

The court reserved decision

on all Rule 50(a) motions and exercised its discretion to submit
the case to the jury subject to the court later deciding the legal
issues raised in them.

Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich,

Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 406 (2006). On March 9, 2018, the jury returned
its verdict in favor of Tietex, finding that Tietex’s accused
products did not infringe the patents-in-suit, either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents.

(Doc. 350.) On March 12, 2018,

the clerk of court sua sponte entered judgment, dated March 9,
2018, in favor of Tietex.

(Doc. 354.)

As explained more fully during the telephonic hearing and to
avoid unnecessary duplication, the court will vacate the judgment
previously entered in this case to permit the court to address all
Rule 50 motions at one time after the parties have fully briefed

1

Identical versions of the pending motion were filed in each case. All
docket references are to case 1:17cv3037, unless otherwise indicated.

2

the legal issues raised in them.

See Adkins v. Crown Auto, Inc.,

488 F.3d 225, 231 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that district court
reserved ruling on Rule 50(a) motion during trial and addressed
Rule 50(a) and Rule 50(b) motions together prior to the entry of
judgment); Leevson v. Aqualife USA, Inc., No. 14-CV-6905, 2017 WL
5048322, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2017) (noting that the court
“reserved judgment on all Rule 50 motions” in complex jury trial
and “[a]fter the verdict the court adjourned the case so the
parties could fully brief and argue all the issues raised in their
motions”).

In accordance with the telephonic hearing, the court

directs the parties to file their post-trial motions under Rule
50(b) and Rule 59 by April 6, 2018.

Subsequent briefing shall be

filed according to the briefing schedule set forth below.

For all

these reasons, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment previously entered in this
case (Doc. 354) is VACATED.

Any party wishing to file post-trial

motions pursuant to Rule 50 or Rule 59 shall do so by April 6,
2018.

Responses must be filed within thirty (30) days of the

filing of the motion.

Replies to responses must be filed within

ten (10) days of the filing of the response.

/s/
Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
March 21, 2018

3