The Rule of Finality

As we reported earlier this year, the 100–plus defendant Parallel Networks shrunk to a more manageable and efficient size following an expedited mini–Markman on three identified claim terms, and a successful defense summary judgment motion which eliminated the vast majority of defendants.

Less than thrilled, Parallel sought to alter or amend the summary judgment order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that—to prevent a manifest injustice—it should be allowed to amend its infringement contentions and engage in a “do–over” against some of the winning defendants. The Court disagreed, for, among other reasons, the fact that the claim construction in question was hardly unexpected. The Court then ordered the remainder of the case stayed while Parallel pursues an appeal of the unfavorable claim construction and summary judgment ruling. (Full disclosure: we represent some defendants in this case.)

With a hat tip towards Docket Navigator, we also give a nod to a recent order in Motorola Mobility v. Apple. Well past the deadline for disclosure, Motorola sought to supplement its infringement contentions against Apple. Noting that the discovery deadline was fast approaching, the Court granted Apple’s motion to strike these contentions: “The Court does not find reason to recast discovery as a period when the parties are free to locate new infringement contentions, potentially delaying for an untold duration the ultimate trial.”

In both cases, the message is clear: it may not bode well when parties seek to circumvent a schedule approved by the presiding judge in order to expedite disposition of an action following full and fair warning.