TDM America, LLC v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 485
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- TDM America, LLC seeks relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) after a summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent case involving the '614 and '862 patents.
- The Markman claim constructions on “accumulating a batch” and “weighing” were issued on Feb. 20, 2009.
- The Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on April 27, 2010.
- TDM challenged the PTO ex parte reexamination record, arguing the reexamination supported a different construction.
- Ex parte reexamination proceedings (Chemfix II) were completed with PTO final positions in 2011.
- The court denied relief, concluding the reexamination evidence was not “material” and did not present extraordinary circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence warrants relief under Rule 60(b)(2). | TDM: reexamination record is newly discovered evidence. | Defendant: evidence existed during decision; not new. | Denied; not material to outcome. |
| Whether ex parte reexamination records can support relief under Rule 60(b)(2). | PTO record is material intrinsic evidence. | PTO statements inconsistent over time reduce weight. | Denied; not material. |
| Whether TDM’s contradictory positions before the Court and PTO undermine relief claims. | Arguments before PTO show different construction; support relief. | Contradictions undermine credibility and relief grounds. | Denied; credibility concerns preclude relief. |
| Whether the PTO’s final reexamination position would alter the outcome of the case. | Reexamination supports broader claim interpretation. | Final PTO position aligns with court decisions. | Denied; final position would not change outcome. |
| Whether the 60(b) motion satisfies the extraordinary-circumstances standard. | Ex parte record demonstrates extraordinary circumstances. | No extraordinary circumstances; standard not met. | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 101 F.2d 94 (Cl.Ct. 1987) (extreme relief under Rule 60(b) discretionous power)
- Yachts America, Inc. v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 278 (1985) (newly discovered evidence requires existence at decision time)
- St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon, Inc., 412 F. App’x 270 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (court can take judicial notice of reexamination records)
- In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (claims construction procedures differ for PTO and courts)
- In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (broadest reasonable construction in reexaminations)