TDM AMERICA, LLC v. United States, 1:06-cv-00472

TDM America, LLC filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment after a summary judgment ruling denied infringement of the ‘614 and ‘862 patents.
The court had previously construed key terms in a February 2009 Markman decision and later granted non-infringement summary judgment in 2010.
Ex parte reexamination with the PTO (Chemfix II) ultimately led to a 2011 reversal finding the claims valid, aligning with the Markman constructions.
TDM argued the PTO reexamination results were “newly discovered” evidence that would alter the case outcome, warranting relief from judgment.
The court held that the ex parte reexamination record was not material to the court’s prior rulings since the final PTO position did not alter the infringement outcome.
The motion was denied, and the court noted concerns about timing, credibility, and PTO procedure in ex parte reexaminations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether relief under Rule 60(b)(2) is warranted by newly discovered evidence.	TDM argues the PTO reexamination record, though completed after judgment, reveals facts existing before judgment.	Defendant contends the evidence was not newly discovered at the time of judgment and is not material.	Denied; evidence not material to outcome.
Whether the ex parte reexamination record constitutes material evidence that could change the judgment.	TDM treats the reexamination record as intrinsic evidence affecting claim construction.	The final PTO position is consistent with the court’s construction and judgment.	Denied; reexamination would not alter the outcome.
Whether TDM’s inconsistent positions before the court and PTO undermine relief.	TDM relied on broader claim constructions in court but narrower ones in reexamination.	Inconsistent arguments undermine credibility and relief should be denied.	Denied; credibility issues do not warrant relief.
Whether PTO ex parte reexamination procedures justify relief from judgment.	Ex parte reexaminations are legitimate and can inform claim scope.	Procedural flaws and lack of participation post-reply reduce weight of PTO statements.	Denied; procedures and timing do not warrant relief.

Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 987 F.2d 1166 (8th Cir. 1993) (extraordinary relief requires exceptional circumstances)
Yachts America, Inc. v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 278 (1985) (newly discovered evidence must exist at decision time and be discoverable with diligence)
Brown v. Pa. R.R. Co., 282 F.2d 522 (3d Cir. 1960) (newly discovered evidence criterion)
Warner v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 739 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir. 1984) (material evidence may warrant relief from judgment)
Chilson v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 796 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1986) (audit or post-judgment information can be treated as newly discovered evidence)
Suitco Surface, Inc. v. United States, 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (claim construction standards differ between courts and PTO)