Judge Paul Engelmayer
FocalPrice Inc. was among those Klipsch Group charged with trademark counterfeiting and infringement, and false designation of origin. On March 26, 2012, it entered into settlement and stipulated consent agreements with Klipsch. On Oct. 23 the court entered judgment on consent as to FocalPrice. District court denied FocalPrice’s motion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), to vacate the consent judgment as unconscionable because the $800,000 it agreed to pay Klipsch was "315 times more in damages" than Klipsch was entitled to under the Lanham Act. FocalPrice’s regrets, and its claim that counsel gave it errant advice, constituted attorney ignorance or mistake not constituting grounds for vacating judgment under Rule 60(b)(1). Further, the record did not foreclose the possibility that the case against FocalPrice would have resulted in judgment exceeding $800,000. Noting that counsel for FocalPrice bargained for the benefits of certainty and closure, the court observed that Rule 60(b) does not exist to save a party from itsand its counsel’signorance, timidity, or buyer’s remorse. However, on the facts, FocalPrice may have a remedy in the form of a legal malpractice claim against the counsel who advised settlement.