03/07/2011
Judge Wolf Vacates Markman Decision to Facilitate Settlement
Some judges, when faced with a motion to vacate a decision in view of a pending settlement, do so without comment. Other judges balk at such requests. If the parties have relied on (and the court has expended) judicial resources to get to judgment, why should the court vacate once a winner and loser have been declared?
When faced with such a request back in June 2010 Judge Wolf ordered the parties to brief the issue. (I’m sure that made them happy.)
After reviewing those briefs, Judge Wolf did agree to vacate an order of summary judgment / claim construction, as a precondition to a settlement agreement. The detailed decision explains how, with non-final judgments and other interlocutory orders, the district court maintains broad discretion to vacate. The decision also notes how the policy reasons for not vacating are very different before final judgment has entered.
In this case, the vacated order came early in the case, the parties had been actively pursuing settlement, and vacatur was necessary to bring the case to a close. So Judge Wolf determined that the public was better served by permitting settlement rather than requiring that the early order stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
LYCOS, INC., )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 07-11469-MLW
)
BLOCKBUSTER, INC., )
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WOLF, D.J. December 23, 2010
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Lycos, Inc. ("Lycos") and defendant Blockbuster,
Inc. ("Blockbuster") have agreed to settle this case, but have made
the settlement contingent upon the court vacating its order
granting partial summary judgment in favor of Blockbuster.
Specifically, Lycos is moving for an order vacating the grant of
summary judgment to Blockbuster with respect to infringement of
U.S. Patent No. 5,867,799 (the "'799 patent"), as well as the claim
construction of terms recited in the '799 patent and U.S. Patent
No. 5,983,214 (the "'214 patent") as incorporated in the summary
judgment ruling and in associated transcripts. For the following
reasons, Lycos's motion is being allowed, and the summary judgment
order and associated claim construction are being vacated.
From IP blog
