No Relief from Judgment for Post-Judgment Reexamination Statements

In Amado v. Microsoft Corp. (February 26, 2008), Microsoft had filed a petition for reexamination of the ’615 patent following the district court’s entry of judgment. Microsoft then moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), arguing that Amado surrendered claim scope during the reexamination in order to secure issuance of the claims.
The district court denied the motion, noting that although Microsoft was aware of the prior art upon which its reexamination petition was based well before trial, it failed to file the reexamination petition until after the unfavorable judgment was entered. The trial court determined that the newly-discovered evidence Microsoft sought to use to set aside the judgment—namely, Amado’s statements to the PTO—was a result of Microsoft’s lack of diligence in filing the petition.

According to the opinion by Circuit Judge Linn,

The district court thus concluded that the circumstances surrounding Microsoft’s
motion did not warrant relief from judgment: "Given that Microsoft waited until
after the judgment in this case to file its Petition for Reexamination, while simultaneously failing to appeal the jury’s finding of validity, Microsoft was not faultless in the delay and justice does not require overturning a jury verdict at this late stage based on statements made to the PTO." Escrow/Injunction Order at 14.

Because extraordinary circumstances have not been shown, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Microsoft’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).