The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, deferring to regional circuit law, reversed the district court’s denial of Microsoft’s Motion to reassign the case (on remand) to a new judge. Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 06-1238 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2006) (Rader, J.).
In Eolas I, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction and its damages analysis with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). See IP Update, Vol 8, No. 3 (March 2005). At the same time, the Court found that the district court erred in rejecting Microsoft’s defenses and vacated the district court’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and the district court’s decision that excluded a prior art software product from its analysis and remanded the case. The decision in Eolas I did not mention reassignment to a different judge on remand.
After the case returned to the district court, Microsoft sought reassignment to a different judge. Microsoft did not assert any bias or misconduct on the part of the original judge, but instead urged that reassignment should occur automatically by operation of a local rule. The district court refused, explaining the local rule "has become a mostly dormant section." The district court explained that application of the local rule to cases on remand from the Federal Circuit was "problematic" because the local rule does not mirror the Federal Circuit Rule and concluded that "the policy of the Federal Circuit is not at all like that of the Seventh Circuit." Thus, the district court concluded that application of the Seventh Circuit rule would be inconsistent with "Federal Circuit policy." Finally, the district court reasoned that reassignment was not required "because Eolas I indicated that the case should remain with the same judge." The Federal Circuit granted Microsoft’s petition to appeal the denial of its reassignment motion.
After noting that "reassignment of a case to a new district court judge after remand is a procedural question that is not unique to this court’s exclusive jurisdiction," the Court deferred to the law of the Seventh Circuit as the law controlling reassignment.
Looking at that law, the Court noted that the Seventh Circuit appears unique among the circuit courts of appeals because it sets forth its law on judicial reassignment in the form of a rule that makes reassignment the norm. "The purpose of [the rule] is to avoid, on retrial after reversal, any bias or mindset the judge may have developed during the first trial." (Emphasis in original.)
The Court easily dismissed Eolas’s arguments that the Seventh Circuit rule only applies to remands from the Seventh Circuit itself, noting that "when the Federal Circuit follows the law of a regional circuit, it acts, as best it can, as that regional circuit would when confronted with the same issue."
The Court also noted that the rule leaves "the Court free to permit the default rule to operate or to permit remand to the same judge or to require reassignment when the default rule would not otherwise operate."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
