Filed: Apr. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . Plaintiff has filed a "Renewed Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b) and 60(d)." (No. 12-355, D.I. 130; No. 13-1812, D.I. 47; No. 14-91, D.I. 55; No. 14-373, D.I. 47). All four of these cases are currently stayed (although in a separate motion, Plaintiff has requested that the stays be lifted). On March 18, 2015, I summarized their status: Pi-Net filed No. 12-355 on March 19, 2012, asserting the `500, `158, and `492 patents
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD G. ANDREWS , District Judge . Plaintiff has filed a "Renewed Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b) and 60(d)." (No. 12-355, D.I. 130; No. 13-1812, D.I. 47; No. 14-91, D.I. 55; No. 14-373, D.I. 47). All four of these cases are currently stayed (although in a separate motion, Plaintiff has requested that the stays be lifted). On March 18, 2015, I summarized their status: Pi-Net filed No. 12-355 on March 19, 2012, asserting the `500, `158, and `492 patents a..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a "Renewed Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b) and 60(d)." (No. 12-355, D.I. 130; No. 13-1812, D.I. 47; No. 14-91, D.I. 55; No. 14-373, D.I. 47). All four of these cases are currently stayed (although in a separate motion, Plaintiff has requested that the stays be lifted). On March 18, 2015, I summarized their status:
Pi-Net filed No. 12-355 on March 19, 2012, asserting the `500, `158, and `492 patents against Citizens Financial Group, Inc. On June 21, 2013, I stayed the case in light of pending CBM review of the three asserted patents. (D.I. 82). The case remains stayed. Pi-Net filed No. 13-1812 on November 1, 2013, asserting the `500 and `492 patents against Wells Fargo & Company. About the time I might have held a scheduling conference, Judge Robinson decided on May 14, 2014, in Pi-Net v. J.P. Morgan, No. 12-282-SLR, that the `500, `158, and `492 patent claims were invalid. (No. 12-282-SLR, D.I. 165 & 166). There has thus been no substantive progress in the No. 13-1812 case, although it has not been formally stayed. In No. 14-91, Pi-Net filed a case on January 22, 2014, against Kronos Inc., asserting the `500, `492, `833, and `894 patents. While preliminary motions were pending, the parties stipulated to a stay pending resolution of the appeal from the J.P. Morgan case. (No. 14-91-RGA, D.I. 14). I granted the stay. In No. 14-373, Pi-Net filed suit against Citigroup, Inc. on March 24, 2014, asserting the `500 and `492 patents. On June 17, 2014, the parties agreed to stay the case, which I granted. (No. 14-373-RGA, D.I. 9).
(D.I. 121).1
Plaintiff has exhausted her appeals in the J.P. Morgan case. Nevertheless, the instant motion appears to be some sort of effort at a collateral attack on the J.P. Morgan decision or as a second and untimely motion to reconsider my earlier decisions on recusal. (D.I. 120, 126). Whichever way it is characterized,2 it is DENIED.
Plaintiff also seeks permission to file electronically. (D.I. 129). The request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
