Withdrawal of recusal motion is granted with prejudice
St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co., LTD., et al., C. A. No. 04-1436-LPS, June 1, 2011 and St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. Palm Inc., et al., C.A. No. 06-404-LPS, June 1, 2011.
Stark, J. The parties requested withdrawal of a motion for recusal because the Federal Circuit’s claim construction substantially altered the posture of the cases over which Judge Stark presided during his tenure as magistrate. The request was accepted, and the motion for recusal denied with prejudice.
Judge Stark conducted mediation and alternative dispute resolution conferences in related patent infringement cases before being elevated to an Article III Judge presiding over the cases. Although no wrongdoing, impropriety, or misconduct was asserted, and all parties agreed that was the case, a group of defendants, following a request from Judge Stark, briefed the propriety of recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The defendants maintained that even in the absence of wrongdoing, impropriety, or misconduct recusal is appropriate to maintain the appearance of impartiality and the confidence of the public and litigants in the certainty of the judicial process and the adversarial nature of our system of justice. Thereafter, the Federal Circuit reversed the claim construction ruling and the infringement finding in one of the related cases and remanded for further proceeding. Because the Federal Circuit’s claim construction substantially changed the posture of the cases, the moving defendants, with plaintiff’s consent, requested a withdrawal of the recusal motion. The request was accepted and the motion was denied with prejudice.
