Wakefield v. Blackboard, decided April 23, 2025

This case concerns Franz A. Wakefield's appeal of the District Court's denial of his motion for relief from a prior judgment of patent invalidity against several technology companies. Wakefield's initial patent infringement suit regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,162,696 was previously decided against him. He subsequently filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that claims within the patent should have been considered differently and raising concerns about a judge on the appellate panel. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, finding that Wakefield's motion was untimely and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his requests. The court also addressed and rejected Wakefield's arguments regarding a rehearing.

Date: October 26, 2023.

Case Summary:

This nonprecedential disposition concerns Franz A. Wakefield, doing business as CoolTVNetwork.com, Inc. (CoolTV), appealing the United States District Court for the District of Delaware's denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and his subsequent motion for reargument. The original judgment, affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2022, held all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,696 ('696 patent) invalid in a patent infringement suit brought by CoolTV against Blackboard Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., International Business Machines Corporation, Kaltura, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Ooyala, Inc., Snap Inc., and Trapelo Corp.

Main Themes and Important Ideas/Facts

Prior Invalidity Ruling and Appeal:

In 2019, CoolTV sued the Appellees for infringement of the '696 patent in the District of Delaware. The magistrate judge concluded that certain means-plus-function limitations of independent claim 1, and similar limitations in claims 15 and 17-18 (due to CoolTV's lack of separate arguments), were indefinite. The district court adopted these recommendations and entered final judgment of invalidity on July 16, 2021. CoolTV appealed, focusing primarily on claim 1 with only a footnote mentioning claims 15 and 17-18. In 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of invalidity. "In 2022, this court affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding invalid all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,696 (’696 patent). See CoolTVNetwork.com, Inc. v. Blackboard, Inc., No. 2021-2191, 2022 WL 2525330 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2022) (per curiam)."

Rule 60(b) Motion and Grounds:

More than a year after the Federal Circuit's mandate, in November 2023, Mr. Wakefield (now proceeding pro se) filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(5) (relating to prior judgment being reversed, vacated, or otherwise no longer equitable) and (6) ("any other reason that justifies relief").

The primary argument in the Rule 60(b) motion was that claims 15 and 17-18 should have been evaluated separately from claim 1 and not treated as means-plus-function claims. "Mr. Wakefield’s motion primarily argued that the district court should have treated claims 15 and 17–18 differently from claim 1. See, e.g., id. at 1136–37."

The motion also briefly raised concerns about Judge Newman's participation in the initial appeal panel, citing a judicial complaint and subsequent suspension related to alleged misconduct or disability.

District Court's Denial of Rule 60(b) Motion

The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as untimely. "The district court denied Mr. Wakefield’s motion in an oral order “at least for the reason that it is untimely.” SAppx 461."

Motion for Reargument and Denial:

Mr. Wakefield filed a motion for reargument, arguing his Rule 60(b) motion was not untimely.

The district court also denied this motion. "The district court denied that motion by another oral order. SAppx 461."

Federal Circuit's Standard of Review:

The Federal Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit (Third Circuit) when reviewing Rule 60(b) rulings concerning procedural matters not unique to patent law, such as timeliness.

The Third Circuit reviews grants or denials of Rule 60(b) relief (except under Rule 60(b)(4)) and denials of motions for reargument for an abuse of discretion. "The Third Circuit “review[s] grants or denials of relief under Rule 60(b), aside from those raised under Rule 60(b)(4),[4] under an abuse of discretion standard.” Sovereign Bank v. REMI Cap., Inc, 49 F.4th 360, 364 (3d Cir. 2022) (citation omitted)."

Abuse of discretion occurs when the district court's decision is based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.

Federal Circuit's Reasoning for Affirming the Denial of the Rule 60(b) Motion:

Untimeliness: The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the Rule 60(b) motion was not made within a reasonable time. The core argument regarding the separate validity of claims 15 and 17-18 could have been raised in the original appeal. "A Rule 60(b) motion is not made within a reasonable time when “the reason for the attack . . . was available for attack upon the original judgment.” Moolenaar v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1348 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528, 538 (2022) (declining to define Rule 60’s “reasonable time” standard but noting that Courts of Appeals have used it to deny Rule 60(b) motions alleging errors that should have been raised in a timely appeal)."

The court noted that CoolTV only made a "passing reference" to this argument in a footnote during the first appeal.

Mr. Wakefield's argument that intervening precedent (Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp.) made his motion timely was rejected because that case was decided during the pendency of the original appeal. "“Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for appeal.” Moolenaar, 822 F.2d at 1347."

The court drew an analogy to Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. v. Stewart, where a delayed request for Director review based on Arthrex was denied for similar reasons of untimeliness.

Regarding the argument concerning Judge Newman, the court found that Mr. Wakefield waited an unreasonable amount of time after the initial complaint against Judge Newman and his subsequent rehearing petition to raise this issue in a Rule 60(b) motion. The court emphasized the "overriding interest in the finality and repose of judgments" (Martinez-McBean v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands).

Federal Circuit's Reasoning for Affirming the Denial of the Motion for Reargument:

The Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motion for reargument.

The local rules specify that reargument should be "sparingly granted."

The grounds for reargument (patent misunderstanding, decision outside adversarial issues, or error of apprehension) were not met. "[R]eargument may be appropriate where ‘the [c]ourt has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the [c]ourt by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.’ Johnson v. Diamond State Port Corp., 50 F. App’x 554, 560 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1241 (D. Del. 1990))."

Note on Misrepresentation: The Federal Circuit explicitly called out the Appellees for an untrue assertion in their response brief, stating that Mr. Wakefield's Rule 60(b) motion "made no mention of Judge Newman." The court pointed to specific locations in the record where this argument was indeed made. "This court must call attention to what is, at best, a careless misrepresentation in Appellees’ response brief. Appellees assert that Mr. Wakefield’s Rule 60(b) motion “made no mention of Judge Newman.” Appellees’ Br. 26. This is simply untrue, as even a basic computer word search of the motion would reveal. See SAppx 1134, 1151– 52; see also SAppx 1225 n.7 (Appellees’ opposition to Mr. Wakefield’s motion acknowledging that the motion made this very argument)."

Conclusion of the Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit found Mr. Wakefield's remaining arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the district court's orders denying his Rule 60(b) motion and his motion for reargument.

Key Takeaways:

• Rule 60(b) motions cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal to raise arguments that were available during the original appellate process.

• The determination of a "reasonable time" for filing a Rule 60(b) motion is highly fact-dependent and subject to the regional circuit's law. Significant delays after the grounds for relief become known are unlikely to be considered reasonable.

• Motions for reargument are disfavored and are typically granted only in limited circumstances where the court has demonstrably misunderstood a party or made a clear error of apprehension.

• Candor and accuracy in legal briefing are crucial, as misrepresentations can be explicitly noted by the court.

Full opinion