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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 requires that a party move for judgment as a matter of law prior to a jury's verdict to preserve its ability to do so after an adverse jury's verdict.  But the rule says nothing about preserving the issue for appeal.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 is similarly silent with respect to a failure to file new trial motions in the trial court.  May a party who fails to file a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for a new trial request either form of relief on appeal?

In the following case, in the trial court, before the case went to the jury, the defendant moved under Rule 50(a) for a directed verdict, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient for the plaintiff to succeed. The trial judge deferred rulling on the motion, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b)) or a motion for a new trial based on insufficient evidence (Rule 59), but did appeal the case. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reached the issue of whether the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, found that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, and ordered a new trial.