Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Rowe
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
Citation:546 U.S. 394 (2006)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
After Swift-Eckrich (Defendant) sent a warning to Unitherm (Plaintiff) that it was infringing one of their patents, Uniterm sued, alleging that the defendant had violated a federal antitrust law by attempting to enforce a patent obtained by fraud. Swift-Eckrich countersued for patent infringement. Before the case was submitted to the jury, the defendant moved for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) based on legal insufficiency of the evidence. The district court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant did not renew the motion for judgment as a matter of law after the verdict, nor did they move for a new trial. The appeals court found the evidence insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, so it reversed the verdict and ordered a new trial.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.