Molten makes the following arguments as grounds for a new trial:
1) The jury's verdict on Baden's false advertising claim is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, and was a result of legal error as the jury was not properly instructed on all necessary legal issues;
2) The jury's damage award for the Lan-ham Act is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, resulted from legal error, and is grossly excessive;
3) The jury's verdict that Molten Corp. and Molten U.S.A. continued to offer for sale infringing basketballs in the United States is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence;
4) The jury's verdict that Molten's infringement of the '835 patent was willful is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, and was the result of legal error in light of In Re Seagate;
5)The jury's damages award for the Patent Act claim is excessive due to the absence of marking and is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.
Molten seeks a new trial on all of these issues, or alternatively, remittitur on the damages awards.
A. Lanham Act claim
Molten argues that the jury's verdict and damages award on Baden's Lanham Act claim is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, based on errors of law, and excessive.

### Language ###
English

### Assessment ###
The text mentions a specific law that could be interesting to query about, as it's central to one of the legal arguments.

### Query ###
Tell me the name of the federal trademark law in the United States.

Note: This query is relevant as the text mentions the "Lanham Act" which is indeed the primary federal trademark law in the US, and a user might want to know this without being aware of the source text.
Tell me the name of the federal trademark law in the United States.

Note: This query is relevant as the text mentions the "Lanham Act" which is indeed the primary federal trademark law in the US, and a user might want to know this without being aware of the source text.