Grecia v. Citibank, N.A.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-02811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Grecia v. Citibank, Judge Caproni denied Grecia’s reconsideration motion, finding no controlling legal change, new evidence, or clear error.
William Grecia and the defendants in the five related cases: Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Citibank, N.A., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, TIAA, FSB doing business as TIAA Bank, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
What happened
In Grecia v. Citibank, N.A. and four related cases, the court had previously granted the defendants’ materially identical motions to dismiss. William Grecia then asked the court to reconsider those decisions.
Grecia argued that a Federal Circuit patent decision changed the law, that the court made an error in describing part of his patent claim, and that the court’s military-base analogy was mistaken. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that the Federal Circuit decision was not controlling, the wording error was immaterial and would be corrected, and the analogy was illustrative rather than a basis for the decision.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Grecia’s motions for reconsideration in all of the related cases and directed the Clerk of Court to close all open motions.
The detailed version
- Grecia v. Citibank, N.A. · No. 1:19-cv-02811
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 24, 2020
Background
The order addresses five related cases brought by William Grecia against Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Citibank, N.A., Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, TIAA, FSB doing business as TIAA Bank, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. On March 13, 2020, the Court had granted the defendants’ materially identical motions to dismiss. On March 27, 2020, Grecia filed a motion for reconsideration in each case.
Arguments and analysis
A motion for reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court described this as a strict standard.
Grecia argued that the Federal Circuit’s decision in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. constituted a change in controlling law. The court disagreed. It held that Illumina was, at most, potentially persuasive authority and addressed patents involving a natural phenomenon, while Grecia’s patent claim involved an abstract idea concerning interoperable digital access. The court also said that Illumina involved specific processes that changed the relevant DNA fraction, unlike the claimed method at issue in Grecia’s cases.
Grecia also argued that the court had mistakenly applied the definition of “verified web service” to “verified web service account identifier.” The court acknowledged that a footnote contained that mistake but held that it was immaterial because the relevant point was that the claim involved a web service used to authenticate a user’s or device’s identity. The court stated that it would issue an amended opinion correcting that error. It also said the amended opinion would revise a statement about Claim 1 because that statement, standing alone, was broader than intended and did not reflect that the claimed information-storage methods used a computer.
Finally, Grecia challenged the court’s analogy involving an MP processing authorized access to a military base. The court held that the analogy was non-dispositive and illustrative, so its use was not clear error. The court also described Grecia’s remaining arguments as repetitions of arguments made in opposition to the original dismissal motions.
Disposition
The court denied Grecia’s motions for reconsideration. It directed the Clerk of Court to close all open motions in the above-captioned cases. The order did not state that the motions were denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.