ePlus Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
946 F. Supp. 2d 459
E.D. Va.2013Background
- ePlus sued Lawson for infringement of patents 6,023,683; 6,055,516; and 6,585,173.
- Jury found infringement on the '683 and '172 claims; '562 not infringed; all asserted claims were valid.
- May 23, 2011 injunction enjoined specific configurations and related services (Configurations 2, 3, 5) and related activities.
- Federal Circuit remanded to modify terms of the injunction consistent with its opinion; affirmed infringement as to claim 26 of the '683 patent and maintained injunction breadth.
- Lawson moved under Rule 60(b)(5) to dissolve or modify the injunction; ePlus argued the mandate requires only limited modification.
- Court held the mandate requires modification but not ab initio dissolution; retained injunction as to infringing configurations and dissolved Configuration 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the injunction be dissolved ab initio under the mandate rule? | ePlus: mandate precludes revisiting propriety; only modify scope. | Lawson: mandate allows retrospective dissolution under Rule 60(b)(5). | Mandate rule bars dissolution ab initio; modification allowed. |
| Does Rule 60(b)(5) permit prospective modification of the injunction? | ePlus: modification not necessary; mandate governs only scope. | Lawson: 60(b)(5) permits altering relief prospectively due to changed facts. | Rule 60(b)(5) authorizes prospective modification under equity principles. |
| Should the court apply the four-factor eBay test to continued injunctive relief post-remand? | ePlus: eBay factors justified continuing injunction; facts unchanged substantively. | Lawson: eBay test may be inappropriate when injunction affirmed in part. | eBay four-factor framework applies to continued injunction. |
| What is the correct scope of modification after remand? | Keep injunction broad as to all configurations infringing Claim 26 unless vacated by the appellate decision. | Limit to configurations still found infringing; exclude those vacated or not supported by the record. | Injunction remains for Configurations 3 and 5; Configuration 2 dissolved; others unchanged. |
Key Cases Cited
- ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509 (Fed.Cir.2012) (mandate requires modification consistent with appellate decision; not ab initio dissolution)
- Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353 (Fed.Cir.2008) (mandate does not permit dissolving an affirmed injunction ab initio; prospective reconsideration allowed)
- Sibbald v. United States, 37 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court 1838) (mandate controls below; law of the case doctrine; limits on relief on remand)
- In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247 (Supreme Court 1895) (mandate execution; court may decide matters left open; review on appeal only)
- Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc., 699 F.3d 1305 (Fed.Cir.2012) (explicit remand for reconsideration in light of changed circumstances)
- Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288 (Fed.Cir.2009) (vacate/injunction reconsideration after change in viable claims)
- Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed.Cir.2007) (remand to reconsider injunction under four-factor analysis)
- i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed.Cir.2010) (contributory and induced infringement considerations post-remand)