RE: RE: q That may be so Sangeth, but I assume B. & H hammered this point for all its worth so it is not as if the jury was not given the opportunity to agree that its hands were tied by reason of the CAFC construction.
If it were that clear cut, Hilton should have instructed the jury that it was not open to them to decide inconsistent with the prior binding decision and therefore given what would amount to a directed verdict on that point. It may well be that this was the subject of the Rule 52 motion and Hilton's dismissal of this could be grounds of appeal
I suspect, however, that LOGM's attorneys were adept in muddying the waters so far as the factual parameters were concerned and thus were successful in distinguishing the CAFC decision.If that is the case, I am afraid to say that it would make an appeal very hard to win as it is extremely hard to to overturn jury verdicts predicated on their preference for one party's factual assertions over the other's.
However given the limited information we have about what transpired at the trial, all our theories must be viewed as being pure speculation.