Lazare Kaplan International, Inc. v. Photoscribe Technologies, Inc.
714 F.3d 1289
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Lazare Kaplan owns the ’351 patent, which covers microinscribing gemstones with lasers, including method and system claims 1 and 7.
- Photoscribe challenged validity; District Court construed ‘controlling the directing’ as automatic feedback during laser burn, finding no literal infringement and issues for trial on doctrine of equivalents.
- A jury found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; the district court later held claims 1 and 7 not invalid and not infringed.
- On appeal, Lazare Kaplan challenged the claim construction broadened by this court; we vacated noninfringement and remanded for validity/infringement under the new construction, Lazare Kaplan III.
- On remand, the district court retried validity and allowed a Rule 60(b) motion by Photoscribe to reopen validity, while Lazare Kaplan sought infringement findings; the district court granted relief and found claims invalid.
- We hold that the district court erred in granting Rule 60(b) relief and vacate the invalidity finding, remanding to reinstate the original validity judgment and address infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper after a cross-appeal rule | Lazare Kaplan argues cross-appeal rule barred reopening validity | Photoscribe contends Rule 60(b) allowed relief and concerns equity | Rule 60(b) relief improper; reverse and reinstate validity judgment |
| Whether the cross-appeal rule bars addressing validity on remand | Lazare Kaplan maintains cross-appeal rule applies to preserve rights | Photoscribe argues remand can address validity due to changed construction | Cross-appeal rule applies; remand may not reconsider validity absent cross-appeal |
| Whether the district court should reassess infringement on remand | Lazare Kaplan seeks infringement findings under revised construction | Photoscribe argues no separate cross-appeal needed; remand should address validity only | Infringement must be assessed on remand under the new construction |
| Whether reassignment to a different judge is warranted | Lazare Kaplan requests reassignment due to potential biases | Lazare Kaplan contends reassignment unnecessary | No reassignment; maintain current district judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (distinct judgments govern relitigation of invalidity vs. infringement)
- Radio Steel & Mfg. Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 731 F.2d 840 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (cross-appeal rule precludes appealing arguments not raised on appeal)
- El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (U.S. 1999) (cross-appeal rule promotes repose; exceptions not recognized)
- Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (Rule 60(b)(6) extraordinary-circumstances standard; failure to appeal forecloses relief)
- Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2012) (Rule 60(b) discretion; extraordinary relief requires exceptional circumstances)
- Cruickshank & Co. v. Dutchess Shipping Co., 805 F.2d 465 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b) not used as substitute for appeal when appeal proper)
- Rinieri v. News Syndicate Co., 385 F.2d 818 (2d Cir. 1967) (Rule 60(b)(6) not available where appeal rights exist)