IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Motion for relief from judgment untimely in website hotspot dispute, (Apr 23, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) was not available because the moving party delayed unreasonably in seeking it.

A patent owner unreasonably delayed bringing a motion for relief from judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The grounds on which the motion was based were known, at the latest, eight months before it was filed, (Wakefield v. Blackboard, Inc., Nos. 24-2030, 24-2031, 24-2032, 24-2033, 24-2035, 24-2036, 24-37, 24-2038 (Fed. Cir. April 23, 2025)).

Franz A. Wakefield was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,696 (the ’696 patent), which claimed a method, apparatus, and system related to website software hotspots. Wakefield brought suit for infringement against Blackboard, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc, International Business Machines Corporation, Kaltura, Inc, Microsoft Corporation, Ooyala, Inc., Snap, Inc., and Trapelo Corp. (collectively, Defendants). The trial court found all claims invalid, and on appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed. More than a year after the appellate decision, Wakefield moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The trial court denied the motion as untimely. Wakefield appealed.

Means-plus-function analysis. The Federal Circuit found that the bulk of Wakefield’s argument was that the trial court erred in holding that claims 15 and 17-18 were means-plus-function claims that could be decided alongside claim 1, rather than analyzing them separately. The court held that this argument was entirely available to Wakefield at the time of his initial appeal, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, as to this ground, Wakefield’s delay in filing his motion was unreasonable.

Judicial disability. Wakefield also argued, albeit briefly, that he did not receive a fair hearing on his first appeal because of the inclusion of Circuit Judge Pauline Newman on the panel. Judge Newman was, was at the time, subject to a complaint which would later lead to her suspension over her ability to perform her duties due to heath concerns and her advanced age. The court found that Wakefield had waited eight months from the order on that issue, and some six months after the Supreme Court had denied his rehearing petition on the same issue, before filing the present motion, and held that in light of the overriding interest in the finality of judgments it could not say that the trial court had abused its discretion in finding this delay unreasonable.

The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the motion for relief from judgment.

The Case is Nos. 24-2030, 24-2031, 24-2032, 24-2033, 24-2035, 24-2036, 24-37, 24-2038.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Franz A. Wakefield, pro se. Michael S. Nadel (McDermott Will & Emery LLP) for Blackboard Inc. Brian S. Hales (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) for International Business Machines Corp. Seth W. Lloyd Morrison & Foerster LLP) for Kaltura, Inc. John D. Vandenberg (Klarquist Sparkman, LLP) for Microsoft Corp. Rickard G. Frenkel (Latham & Watkins LLP) for Ooyala, Inc. Heidi L. Keefe (Cooley LLP) for Snap Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. Ricardo Bonilla (Fish & Richardson P.C.) for Trapelo Corp.

Companies: Blackboard Inc.; International Business Machines Corp. Kaltura, Inc.; Microsoft Corp. Ooyala, Inc.; Snap Inc.; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Trapelo Corp.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews FloridaNews