j2 Global Communications Inc v. Captaris Inc

Filing 222

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING Motion for Reconsideration of Court's March 4, 2011 Claim Construction Order 209 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. (See Order for Details). (sch)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

j2 GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS
INC.,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
CAPTARIS INC., et al.,
15
16
17

Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 09-04150 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S MARCH
4, 2011 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
[Motion filed on 05/19/2011]

This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ Captaris

18

Inc. and Open Text Corporation’s (together “Captaris”) Motion for

19

Reconsideration of Courts March 4, 2011 Claim Construction Order.

20

After reviewing and considering the materials submitted by the

21

parties, the court denies the motion.

22

Captaris moves for reconsideration of this court's claim

23

construction order of March 4, 2011.

24

reconsider this decision with regard to four terms.

25

Motion for Reconsideration 1:16 - 3:16.)

26
27
28

Captaris urges the court to
(Captaris’

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7-18:
A motion for reconsideration of the decision
on any motion may be made only on the grounds
of (a) a material difference in fact or law
from that presented to the Court before such
decision that in the exercise of reasonable

1

diligence could not have been known to the
party moving for reconsideration at the time
of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new
material facts or a change of law occurring
after the time of such decision, or (c) a
manifest showing of a failure to consider
material facts presented to the Court before
such decision. No motion for reconsideration
shall in any manner repeat any oral or written
argument made in support of or in opposition
to the original motion.

2
3
4
5
6
7

Here, there is no evidence of a material difference in fact or

8

law from that originally presented to the court.

Further, nothing

9

has developed in regards to this issue since the decision was

10

issued.

11

consider material facts presented at summary judgment.

12

the motion does little more than recite the allegations of the

13

pleadings.

14

7-18.

15

Finally, Captaris does not claim that this court failed to
In fact,

The motion, therefore, does not comply with Local Rule

Moreover, the court finds that Captaris’ evidence in support

16

of its preferred constructions of the terms “access request,”

17

“user-specific message storage area,” “inbound address uniquely

18

associated with a user account,” and “audio message” is

19

insufficient to warrant any change in the court's position on this

20

matter.

21

The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
Dated: July 19, 2011
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

27
28
2