A jury verdict has a drama, a momentousness, a sense of climax and conclusion, which is, more often than not, an illusion. The verdict makes for great television, of course, but cases, though they are rarely tried to jury verdict, rarely end when a verdict is reached.
This is undoubtedly particularly the case when the case is a “bellwether” case — a case intended to help litigants and the court get a sense of how many “similarly situated” companion cases will play out. The stakes of such a case are magnified a hundred times or more. All bases for appeal are likely to be thoroughly explored and exploited. No one should be surprised, therefore, that defendants are attacking the Schedin verdict, and plaintiff’s counsel, of course, is adamantly defending it.