Harris Brumfield, Trustee for Ascent Trust v. IBG LLC, et al.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) empowers parties to seek relief from an adverse judgment, upon a showing of “fraud,” “misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Petitioner filed such a motion in this case, requesting an entirely new damages trial based on Respondent’s fraud. The district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial, and the Federal Circuit perpetuated this error by affirming. Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) includes no requirement that a party must establish diligence in uncovering another party’s fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit held that diligence is a requirement to relief under Rule 60(b)(3). The circuits are split on this issue. The first question presented is: Whether the lower courts abused their discretion by denying the meritorious Rule 60(b)(3) motion, and whether Rule 60(b)(3) requires a showing that a moving party was diligent in uncovering fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct to obtain relief from a judgment?

The three categorical judicial exceptions to patent eligibility that are further defined by the twostep Alice/Mayo1 test impose limitations to eligibility that are inconsistent with the text of 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the 1952 Patent Act. These limitations are 1 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).