HR Technology, Inc. v. Imura International U.S.A., Inc. et al
Filing
516
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 515 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Vacate. The first paragraph of the 459 Amended Judgment and the corresponding ruling in the Court's 382 Memorandum and Order of 03/09/2012 are hereby VACATED. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 2/10/2014. (ses)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
HR TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
f/k/a THERMAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
IMURA INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC.;
)
VITA CRAFT CORPORATION; and
)
MAMORU IMURA, an individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)
)
IMURA INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC.,
)
and VITA CRAFT CORPORATION,
)
)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
HR TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
)
f/k/a THERMAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
)
)
Counterclaim Defendant.
)
)
_______________________________________)
Case No. 08-2220-JWL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
By Memorandum and Order of March 9, 2012 (Doc. # 382), this Court ruled that
certain claims of three patents held by plaintiff were invalid, and the Court’s Amended
Judgment (Doc. # 459), issued October 3, 2012, included judgment in favor of the two
corporate defendants on their counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of those
claims’ invalidity. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement conditioned on this Court’s vacatur of its invalidity rulings. Plaintiff then
filed in this Court a motion seeking an “indicative ruling” that, upon remand, the Court
would grant an unopposed motion to vacate the invalidity rulings, and the Court granted
the motion, stating that it had “no reason to believe that it would not grant an unopposed
motion seeking [such] relief.” By Order of January 31, 2014, the Federal Circuit Court
of Appeals remanded the case for the limited purpose of allowing this Court to consider
the issue of the vacatur of the invalidity rulings. On the same day, plaintiff filed the
instant unopposed motion to vacate (Doc. # 515).
Plaintiff seeks relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6),
which authorizes relief from a final judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”
See id. In its remand order, the Federal Circuit stated that it “takes no position on the
propriety or necessity of vacatur, leaving it to the district court to apply the principles
enunciated in U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994).”
In U.S. Bancorp, the Supreme Court stated that exceptional circumstances could support
vacatur of a judgment upon settlement by the parties. See id. at 29.
The Court concludes that exceptional circumstances warrant partial vacatur of the
amended judgment as requested in this case. Although the mere fact of settlement is not
a sufficient justification by itself, see id., that interest is supported by the limited
precedential value of the Court’s invalidity ruling. Plaintiff has represented that no other
parties have challenged these patent claims, and as plaintiff points out, the Court’s
2
published legal analysis, which was specific to the particular patents at issue, will retain
any persuasive force whether or not accompanied by a judgment. Moreover, the
settlement is conditioned on a vacatur, and a settlement would serve the interests of both
parties and judicial efficiency in avoiding further protracted and costly litigation. See,
e.g., United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Airosol Co., 2001 WL 34664157 (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2001)
(indicating intent to grant vacatur in light of the equitable considerations favoring
settlement and the court’s finding that the benefits outweighed any harm the judicial
system might suffer from losing legal precedent). Further, the public interest would be
served by acknowledging the efficacy of the Federal Circuit’s mandatory mediation
program in which the parties participated, thereby encouraging future dispute resolution
by means less costly of private and public resources than full-blown litigation.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s unopposed
motion to vacate (Doc. # 515) is granted. The first paragraph of the Amended Judgment
and the corresponding ruling in the Court’s Memorandum and Order of March 9, 2012,
are hereby vacated.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2014, in Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ John W. Lungstrum
John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?