Angioscore, Inc. v. Trireme Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 843

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Denying #835 Defendant Konstantino's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7
8
9

ANGIOSCORE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRIREME MEDICAL, INC., ET AL.,

Case No. 12-cv-03393-YGR
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
KONSTANTINO’S MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT

Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

By way of brief background, on July 1, 2015, after a bench trial in April 2015 on plaintiff’s

12

state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and comprehensive post-trial briefing and argument,

13

the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in favor of plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 665.)

14

In September 2015, a jury trial was held on plaintiff’s patent infringement claims, which resulted

15

in a jury verdict of non-infringement and invalidity as to all asserted claims. (Dkt. No. 790.)

16

Within one day of the jury verdict and prior to entry of final judgment, defendants filed a motion

17

to reopen the trial record, to reopen discovery, and sought leave to file a motion for

18

reconsideration in connection with the state law portion of the case. (Dkt. Nos. 785, 792.) The

19

motion, in part based on plaintiff’s purported concealment of relevant information about its

20

declining market share, was denied. (Dkt. No. 809.) The Court noted that defendants could have

21

further questioned witnesses or presented additional expert testimony regarding the appropriate

22

market definition at trial. (Id. at 3.) Defendant Konstantino—now represented by his third set of

23

attorneys (none of whom participated in the trial)—moves to alter or amend the judgment, again

24

challenging the lost profits damages award as based on an improper market definition. (Dkt. No.

25

835.) Konstantino also challenges the future lost profits awarded as “speculative” and the

26

disgorgement remedy as legally improper. Having carefully considered the papers submitted and

27
28

1
2

the record in this case, the Court DENIES the motion.1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may alter or amend a judgment

3

where: “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the

4

judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable

5

evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening

6

change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th

7

Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). Rule 59(e) is generally seen as “an ‘extraordinary

8

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’”

9

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). A motion under Rule 59(e) “should not be
granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling

12

law.ˮ 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) “may not

13

be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been

14

raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008)

15

(quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127-128 (2d ed.

16

1995)); see also Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A district

17

court does not abuse its discretion when it disregards legal arguments made for the first time on a

18

motion to amend.”). A district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying a

19

motion to amend or alter a judgment under Rule 59(e). See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d

20

1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc).

21

Konstantino asserts the motion seeks to correct “manifest errors of law or fact upon which

22

the judgment is based” and is “necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” He argues the lost profits

23

and disgorgement awards are improper. As to the lost profits award, he contends it was based on

24

an improper market definition, arguing plaintiff’s expert was not qualified to offer an opinion on

25
26
27
28

1

The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral
argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See
also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th
Cir. 1991).
2

1

market definition and that his conclusions regarding the relevant market were premised on

2

inappropriate assumptions and misconstrued evidence. He also argues the future lost profits

3

award is impermissibly speculative. As to the disgorgement award, he argues it is contrary to law

4

because it would result in an impermissible double recovery, because Konstantino has not been

5

unjustly enriched, and due to the purported lack of a causal connection between Konstantino’s

6

wrongdoing and his receipt of that property.

7

The motion is based entirely on arguments and evidence that either were or could have

8

been presented to the Court prior to entry of judgment. As to the complaints regarding the lost

9

profits calculation, Konstantino’s arguments, including that the Court should have credited the
testimony of his expert over plaintiff's, were or could have been presented before entry of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

judgment. Moreover, the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contains substantial

12

support for the relevant market, including defendants’ own records, which shall not be repeated

13

here. As to Konstantino’s challenge to the disgorgement remedy, these arguments also could have

14

been previously raised, and in any event the Court’s award was justified under Delaware law.

15

Thus, finding no “manifest injustice” or “manifest error” reflected in the Findings of Fact and

16

Conclusions of Law or resulting final judgment, the Court DENIES Konstantino’s motion to alter

17

or amend the judgment.

18

This Order terminates Docket Number 835.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: January 7, 2016

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3