133586P.pdf   02/27/2015  Hamid Yazdianpour  v.  Safeblood Technologies, Inc.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3586
                          and No:  13-3632
                          and No:  13-3639
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Fraud. With respect to plaintiffs' fraud claim, the district 
   court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment as there 
   was a disputed issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs justifiably 
   relied on statements made by defendants as to whether defendants owned the 
   rights to the patent in question outside the United States; under Arkansas 
   law, the district court did not err in instructing the jury that 
   plaintiffs could not recover under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices 
   Act if the only injury they suffered was diminution in the value of the 
   product; plaintiffs waived their inconsistent verdict argument by failing 
   to raise the objection before the jury was discharged; with respect to 
   defendants' cross-appeal, their claim that the verdict was against the 
   weight of the evidence could not be considered because they failed to 
   renew their motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b); 
   under Arkansas law, the district court abused its discretion when it 
   awarded plaintiffs prejudgment interest on their breach-of-contract claim; 
   remanded for trial of plaintiffs' fraud claim.