They are building their case to appeal.
Actually, unless the federal procedure rules (FRCP) and the applicable jurisprudence have changed in last few years, HTC is preserving its case for appeal, which is to be expected. Of course, HTC's lawyers certainly hope the motion is granted, but its mere filing is necessary regardless of the immediate outcome.
This is a "Rule 50(a) motion", and can be a trap for lawyers who practice only sporadically in federal court. Believe me, I know, because that trap sprung on me back in 1995 and nearly took my leg off. If you are interested, you can find the case, which is "Hunter v. KREMCO", from out of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. There are several different versions, because my opponent took the case up all the way to filing a writ in the United States Supreme Court. That writ was ultimately denied, so I prevailed, but I had endured many sleepless nights over the situation for a couple of years.
Rule 50(a) uses the permissive language "may", but, according to the jurisprudence, if you don't make the motion and state both the supporting law and the facts, you have waived your right to assert the basis of the motion on appeal. Indeed, back at the time of my case, it was required that you make the motion at the close of the plaintiff's case, again at the close of all the evidence, and, if the jury verdict went against you, yet again within a certain period of time thereafter, the last of which must have been done in writing. I seem to recall that at least some of those steps and/or accompanying requirements may have been relaxed, but I would need to do some research to confirm that.
The point is that this motion by HTC should not come as any surprise, simply because it is required. In fact, it would probably be malpractice for HTC's lawyers not to file it. Certainly, none of us knows how the Judge will rule, but the mere filing of the motion, in and of itself, should not be cause for undue concern.
Best wishes and good luck to all.
