Patent Judgment Entered After Settlement Cannot Be Reopened

Case: Louisville Bedding Co. v. Pillowtex Corp., No. 05-1595 (Fed Cir. 7/25/06)

The One Sentence Summary: A Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen a judgment entered upon settlement of patent litigation was properly denied - the business failure of the former defendant was a contingency that should have been considered in structuring the original settlement and judgment.


What They Were Fighting About: Plaintiff Louisville had a patent for fitted mattress covers that it asserted in earlier litigation against Pillowtex. After claim construction decisions adverse to Louisville, Louisville settled with Pillowtex. The settlement included entry of a judgment by the court that a mattress pad sold by Pillowtex, the 4059 mattress pad, did not infringe certain claims of the Louisville patent.

Pillowtex later went out of business, and the company that provided the mattress pads to Pillowtex, Xymid, began selling the 4059 mattress pad to others. Louisville then sought to reopen the earlier litigation and amend the judgment so that it could pursue Xymid. The district court refused Louisville's motion.

Federal Circuit Holdings:

• The district court acted within its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen a case and partially vacate the judgment. Typically, a district court may grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) only for "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances." Louisville could have anticipated that Pillowtex could go out of business at some point, and could have structured its settlement to cover that contingency. Reopening the judgment would undermine the important goal of finality of litigation.