AlexSam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P.

AlexSam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P. The Federal Circuit held that Simon’s motion, though styled under Rules 54(b) and 60(a), was properly construed as a Rule 60(b)(1) motion and that relief was available to correct the district court’s legal error. The court held the indemnification claim was not moot because Simon and Blackhawk continued to have a live controversy over indemnification. The decision is a reminder that post-judgment labeling is not controlling and that collateral state-law indemnity disputes may remain live even after the patent claims are resolved. Vacated and remanded with instructions to enter a new order dismissing Simon’s indemnification claim without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). No costs. AlexSam sued Simon for infringement of the ’608 patent; Simon brought a state-law third-party indemnification claim against Blackhawk, the alleged supplier of the accused gift cards. After the district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement, it amended the judgment to dismiss all “counterclaims or other claims” as moot, which swept in Simon’s indemnification claim. Applying Fifth Circuit law, the Federal Circuit treated Simon’s timely post-judgment motion by substance rather than label and construed it as seeking Rule 60(b)(1) relief for judicial legal error. The court held mootness was improper because the indemnification dispute remained a live controversy. Given the parties’ positions on appeal, the Federal Circuit directed dismissal without prejudice under supplemental-jurisdiction principles, without deciding whether the Fifth Circuit’s § 1367(c) factors were satisfied. standing / jurisdiction remand non-precedential infringement standing / jurisdiction remand non-precedential infringement standing / jurisdiction remand