United States District Court, D. Delaware
Wilmington this 30th day of March, 2017, having
reviewed plaintiff's motions for relief from judgment,
and the papers filed in connection therewith;
ORDERED that said motions (Civ. No. 13-941, D.I. 97; Civ. No.
13-942, D.I. 92) are denied, for the reasons that follow:
December 22, 2014, the court entered judgment in favor of
defendants Amazon.Com, Inc. and Barnes & Noble, Inc., and
against plaintiff Cloud Satchel, LLC, having found through a
summary judgment motion practice that the patents in suit in
the above captioned cases were patent ineligible under 35
U.S.C. § 101. (Civ. No. 13-941, D.I. 90-92; Civ. No.
13-942, D.I. 85-87) On January 27, 2016, the Federal Circuit
affirmed entry of judgment. (Civ. No. 13-941, D.I. 96; Civ.
No. 13-942, D.I. 91) Plaintiff filed the instant motions in
July 2016, arguing that the court's analyses in its
summary judgment decisions had been called into question by
three Federal Circuit cases that issued after the Federal
Circuit's affirmance in this case.
Standard of review.
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the court to relieve
a party from a final adverse judgment for "'any . .
. reason'" other than those listed elsewhere in the
Rule." Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d 113, 120 (3d Cir.
2014).According to the Third Circuit, "for
relief to be granted under Rule 60(b)(6), 'more' than
[a] concededly important change of law ... is required -
indeed, much 'more' is required. Ultimately, as with
any motion for 60(b)(6) relief, what must be shown are
'extraordinary circumstances where, without such relief,
an extreme and unexpected hardship would occur.'"
Id. at 115 (citing Sawka v. Healtheast,
Inc., 989 F.2d 138, 140 (3d Cir. 1993)). "The
fundamental point of 60(b)(6) is that it provides 'a
grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a
particular case;'" however, the Third Circuit has
"consistently articulated . . . that intervening changes
in the law rarely justify relief from final judgments under
60(b)(6)." Cox, 757 F.3d at 121 (emphasis in
original) (citations omitted). The Third Circuit has directed
that courts employ "a flexible, multifactor approach to
Rule 60(b)(6) motions, including those built upon a
post-judgment change in the law, that takes into accout all
the particulars of a movant's case." Id. at
122. "The grant or denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is
an equitable matter left, in the first instance, to the
discretion of a district court." Id. at 124.
court recognizes at the outset that the § 101
determination of patent ineligibility stripped
plaintiff's patents of their value. The court recognizes
as well that the § 101 jurisprudence has been an
evolving one. Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit itself
reviewed and affirmed the court's § 101
determination at bar, and none of the Federal Circuit
decisions identified by plaintiff are en banc
decisions or are characterized as changing the § 101
legal framework by the panels that decided them. Instead,
these cases simply reflect the reality that different panels
may describe, interpret and/or apply existing precedent
differently in light of different facts. The Federal
Circuit decisions identified by plaintiff are the kind of
"intervening developments in the law" that result
from our system of common law, and plaintiff has failed to
adduce evidence that the Federal Circuit's pronouncement
of invalidity was either an extreme or unexpected hardship.
In short, the facts of record do not constitute the kind of
extraordinary circumstances that warrant the exercise of the
court's equitable discretion.
reasons stated, plaintiff's motions for relief filed
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) are denied.
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global
Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016); and Rapid Litigation Mgt. v.
CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir.
Plaintiff relied on Third Circuit case
law, consistent with the Federal Circuit's practice of
applying the law of the regional circuit when reviewing
non-patent issues. See Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg.
Co.,279 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Although
arguably Federal Circuit precedent should govern this
dispute, as the resolution "turns on substantive issues
unique to patent law, " Lazare Kaplan Int'l,
Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc.,714 F.3d 1289, 1293
(Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit ...