Fertility Technology Resources, Inc. “FTR” filed this action in the Superior Court of Newton County against Lifetek Medical, Inc. A jury found in favor of FTR on its claims of breach of contract and tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship.1 In addition, the jury found in favor of FTR on its claim for litigation expenses including attorney fees, which brought the total award to $133,220. After a hearing, the trial court granted in part Lifetek’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, setting aside the jury’s award for tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship and attorney fees. For the following reasons, we reverse. A motion pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-50 b for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “may be granted only when, without weighing the credibility of the evidence, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper judgment. . . . Where there is conflicting evidence, or there is insufficient evidence to make a ‘one-way’ verdict proper, judgment notwithstanding the verdict should not be awarded.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Goggin v. Goldman , 209 Ga. App. 251, 252 433 SE2d 85 1993. In considering the motion, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who secured the jury verdict and who opposed the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict Id. Likewise, on appeal from a trial court’s rulings on motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we review and resolve the evidence and any doubts or ambiguities in favor of the verdict; directed verdicts and judgments n.o.v. are not proper unless there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, demands a certain verdict. Citations and punctuation omitted. James E. Warren, M.D., P.C. v. Weber & Warren Anesthesia Services, LLC , 272 Ga. App. 232, 235 2 612 SE2d 17 2005.
Viewed in the light most favorable to FTR, the evidence showed the following.2 In early 1998, FTR was an established company, owned and operated by George Ausman and C. W. Sturgeon, which did business as a distributor of medical supplies and equipment used in fertility clinics. Michael Kvalo operated Lifetek, a manufacturer of certain fertility practice equipment and supplies. Ausman approached Kvalo and proposed that FTR serve as Lifetek’s exclusive distributor for its intrauterine insemination “IUI” catheters. The two men began discussing the possibility of creating a new product to compete with the Wallace brand embryo transfer catheter. The parties eventually agreed that FTR would invest $45,000 in Lifetek and that, in exchange, Lifetek would design and manufacture an 18 centimeter long embryo transfer catheter. Under the parties’ agreement, FTR owned the product, which was called the Embryo Glide, and had the exclusive right to sell the product to customers. Lifetek agreed to manufacture the product for FTR, and FTR agreed to pay Lifetek a set fee for each unit it ordered from Lifetek. The parties also discussed bringing to market a 23 centimeter version of the Embryo Glide later. After Lifetek began manufacturing the 23 centimeter version, both FTR and Lifetek claimed ownership of the product.
