pun (a/k/a LV70 50 pom, LV 50 pom, IN70 50 pom); and LV300 75 pom (a/k/a LV70 75 pom, LV 75 pom, IN70 75 pom). (Verdict ¶ 12.) 9 . See fn. 8. 10 . See fn. 8. 11 . The two films found not to infringe Claim 10 of the ’961 Patent are: IF70 (25 to) and IF70 (75 to). (Verdict ¶ 12.) As to IF70 (25 pom), it appears the jury initially checked the box indicating that it did infringe, but subsequently wrote "No" over the check mark. The Court interprets this to mean that the jury changed their mind and ultimately found IF70 (25 pom) does not infringe Claim 10 of the '961 Patent. 12 . Unless otherwise noted, all references to "Rule” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 13 . Case law supports this interpretation of Rules 50 and 59. See Jurgens v. McKasy, 905 F.2d 382, 386 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Warner v. Rossignol, 513 F.2d 678 (1st
holding that any motion made within ten days of entry of judgment which seeks a substantive change in the judgment will be considered a rule 59e motion which suspends the finality of the judgment and tolls the time to appeal holding summary judgment may only be entered for one who has filed a motion asking that relief and only after notice and hearing on that motion holding that ten day limit in rule 59 sets only a maximum period and does not nullify an otherwise valid motion made before a formal judgment has been entered holding that a second motion to reconsider served within ten days of the denial of the first motion does not extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal from the underlying judgment holding that district courts order granting motion for default judgment was erroneous  because a default judgment cannot be entered until the amount of damages has been ascertained 