883 F.2d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1989), 89-1213, Randomex, Inc. v. Scopus Corp.
|Citation:||883 F.2d 1026|
|Party Name:||RANDOMEX, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCOPUS CORPORATION and Dennis Haskamp, Defendants-Appellants.|
|Case Date:||July 12, 1989|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTAF Rule 47.6 and FI CTAF App. V, IOP 9 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1815
849 F.2d 585, APPEAL AFTER REMAND.
Before BISSELL, ARCHER and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
BISSELL, Circuit Judge.
Scopus Corp. appeals the order of the United States District Court of Massachusetts, Randomex, Inc. v. Scopus Corp., No. 82-3523-MA-A (Nov. 30, 1988), denying Scopus' motions for a new trial on the issues of patent validity and patent misuse. We affirm.
Although the district court judgment was vacated and the holding of invalidity reversed by our mandate in the previous appeal of this case, see Randomex, Inc. v. Scopus Corp., 849 F.2d 585, 590, 7 USPQ2d 1050, 1055 (Fed.Cir.1988), Scopus filed motions in the district court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 and 60(b) seeking amendment of and relief from the judgment of "this Court." Because the motions could not attack a vacated district court judgment, we address separately the appealability of the district court's denial of these motions.
The Rule 60(b) motion requested a new trial on the validity issue resolved by our mandate. Accordingly, the Rule 60(b) order is final and appealable, see Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 19 (1976) (holding that a district court may entertain a Rule 60(b) motion without leave of the appellate court even after the appellate court's mandate has issued), and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7 (1978); Rodriguez-Antuna v. Chase Manhattan Bank Corp., 871 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1989). According to the First Circuit, "before retrial is mandated under Rule 60(b)(3) in consequence of discovery misconduct, the challenged behavior must substantially have interfered with the aggrieved party's ability fully and fairly to prepare for and proceed at trial." Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 924 (1st Cir.1988) (emphasis in original). Where the misconduct relates to withheld documents, "the documents themselves may constitute clear and convincing proof that no...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP