Invista North America S.A.R.L., et al. v. M&G USA Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 11-1007- SLR, January 14, 2015.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions to stay and for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) are denied.
Final judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs on April 1, 2014 following a finding by the court of infringement and a jury finding that the patent is not invalid. Defendants requested reexamination with the PTO on April 29, 2014 and again on September 12, 2014. The Federal Circuit affirmed the final judgment without opinion on October 7, 2014. Thereafter, on October 23, 2014, the PTO merged the two reexams and issued a Merged Office Action rejecting all claims of the patent-in-suit. The court notes that only because damages and willfulness were bifurcated is it possible that defendants’ get another bite at this apple. The court regrets that its prior practice of bifurcating has led to this need to consider this motion. The court declines to stay proceedings on damages while the proceedings are pending before the PTO. With respect to the Rule 60(b)(2) motion, the newly discovered evidence relied on by defendants includes the PTO’s update to the prosecution history from the reexam proceedings occurring after the entry of final judgment. Additional Rule 60 arguments are rejected. The court will entertain further discussion on whether one or both parties should post bonds.
