Pieczenik v. Dyax (Fed. Cir. December 16, 2004) (Unpublished Opinion).
George Pieczenik owns several patents relating to a method of inserting DNA sequences into DNA vectors. (For Example, U.S. Patent No. 4,528,266-A).
In an infringement lawsuit against Dyax, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dyax — ruling that Dyax did not infringe the asserted patents.
After the close of the case, Pieczenik filed a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b).
Rule 60(b): “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” under specified circumstances, including: “(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).”
Pieczenik alleged that he had uncovered new information that established the falsity of an affidavit of Dyax’s Senior VP that had been submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion to reopen the case.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed — finding that (i) the evidence presented was not “newly-discovered” because it would have been available to Pieczenik if he had followed through with discovery; and (ii) Pieczenik did not show how the new evidence would alter the district court’s claim construction.