By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Laboratory Skin Care, Inc., et al. v. Limited Brands, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 06-601-LPS (D. Del., September 8, 2011), the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or in the Alternative for a New Trial. In their motion, Plaintiffs raised three grounds for the relief they sought: (1) insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of a barring sale; (2) erroneous jury instructions on both elements of the on-sale bar test; and (3) the alleged admittance into evidence of expert testimony beyond the scope of the expert report. Id. at 2. In denying Plaintiffs’ motion and upholding the verdict, the Court found that the jury did have sufficient evidence on which to base its finding of a barring sale, the Court’s instructions on the two elements of the on-sale bar test were proper, and the disputed expert testimony was not unduly prejudicial to Plaintiffs. Id. at 5-15.
A complete copy of the Court’s Opinion is attached.