PLC, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees.
Rodrick J. Enns, ENNS & ARCHER, LLP, Winston-Salem, NorthCarolina, for Appellants. Andrew S. Chamberlin, Alex J.Hagan, ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina,for Appellees.
DAVIS, Circuit Judge:In May and June 2010, Appellee Meyer Corporation, U.S.,("Meyer")
and Appellants Belk, Incorporated, and Belk Inter-national, Incorporated (collectively, "Belk"), clashed in anine-day trial with eighteen witnesses who educated the juryat length about the design, creation, marketing and profitabil-ity of high-end cookware. At the conclusion of trial, the dis-trict court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’sverdict in favor of Meyer on its claims of trade dress infringe-ment,
15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and unfair and deceptive trade practices,
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1.
The court trebled thedamages amount found by the jury to $1,260,000 pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 and denied Belk’s remaining requestsfor declaratory relief.Belk failed to file a postverdict motion pursuant to either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) or 59 and instead
There are two Appellees in this case. Meyer Corporation, U.S. ("Meyer U.S.") is a Delaware corporation that supplies the cookware, and AppelleeMeyer Intellectual Properties Limited ("Meyer IP") is a British VirginIslands company that holds several patents related to the "AnolonAdvanced" cookware at issue in this case. Meyer U.S. is the sole autho-rized licensee of the various patents Meyer IP holds in the U.S. retail mar-ket. The two entities are referred to collectively here as "Meyer."
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes, including the entry of final judgment. For ease of referencethroughout this opinion, we refer to the magistrate judge as the districtcourt.
. v. M