072694P.pdf   08/22/2008  Dr. Martin Hinz  v.  Neuroscience, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  07-2694
                          and No:  07-2699
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Gruender and Baldock, Circuit Judges]
   Civil case - contracts. District court did not err in looking to
   defendant's Rule 50(a) motion in evaluating the sufficiency of its post-
   trial Rule 50(b) motion, and the court had jurisdiction, based on the
   motion, to enter an amended judgment reversing the jury's damage
   award; plaintiff's evidence failed to provide a reasonable basis for
   calculating damages, and the court did not err in setting aside the jury's
   award; challenge to damages instructions rejected; district court did not
   abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for a permanent
   injunction as he failed to establish irreparable injury; plaintiff was not a
   prevailing party under Minnesota law and he was not entitled to
   attorneys' fees and costs.