Cave Consulting Group, LLC v. Ingenix, Inc.

Filing 480

ORDER DENYING 457 CCGROUP'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 4/7/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-00469-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING CCGROUP'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 10 11 OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,, Re: Dkt. No. 457 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 13 On September 21, 2016, Plaintiff Cave Consulting Group, LLC (“CCGroup”) filed a 14 15 motion for leave to seek reconsideration of the Court’s September 7, 2016 order on the parties’ 16 post-judgment motions (“Order”). Dkt. No. 457. For the reasons discussed below, CCGroup’s 17 motion for leave is DENIED. 18 19 I. BACKGROUND CCGroup brought this patent infringement action against Defendant OptumInsight, Inc. 20 (“OptumInsight”) on January 31, 2011. Dkt. No. 1. On April 3, 2015, the jury returned a verdict 21 in CCGroup’s favor, and the Court entered judgment three days later. Dkt. Nos. 366, 370. The 22 parties filed various motions for post-judgment relief, including a motion by CCGroup to set an 23 ongoing royalty rate. Dkt. No. 385. On September 7, 2016, the Court issued its Order on the 24 parties’ post-judgment motions, in which it determined that “it would be appropriate to delay the 25 consideration of evidence and calculating the ongoing royalty rate until after the completion of the 26 appeals in this case.” Dkt. No. 456 at 45. On September 20, 2016, CCGroup filed the instant 27 motion, requesting leave to seek reconsideration of the Court’s decision to delay its determination 28 1 Case No.: 11-cv-00469-EJD ORDER DENYING CCGROUP’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 1 of an ongoing royalty rate. Dkt. No. 457. Shortly thereafter, on October 5, 2016, OptumInsight filed a notice of appeal to the Court 2 3 of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dkt. No. 459. CCGroup moved to dismiss for lack of 4 jurisdiction. Motion to Dismiss Appeals, Cave Consulting Group, LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc., No. 5 17-1060 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 22, 2016) (No. 26). In its brief before the Federal Circuit, CCGroup 6 argued that the Court’s judgment was not “final except for an accounting” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1295(a)(1) because the Court had not set an ongoing royalty rate. Id. On March 31, 2017, the Federal Circuit denied CCGroup’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 8 9 479 (Order on Motion, Cave Consulting Group, LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc., No. 17-1060 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2017) (No. 29)). In its decision, the Federal Circuit concluded that the determination of 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 an ongoing royalty rate constitutes an “accounting,” and thus, the case was “final except for an 12 accounting” under § 1295(a)(1). Id. 13 II. DISCUSSION In the absence of a change in facts or law, a party seeking leave to file a motion for 14 15 reconsideration of a court order in this district must specifically show “a manifest failure by the 16 Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 17 before such interlocutory order.” Civil L.R. 7-9(b). In the instant motion, CCGroup argues that the Court should reconsider its Order and set 18 19 an ongoing royalty rate “because otherwise, the Court’s judgment will not be final and 20 appealable.” Dkt. No. 457 at 1. This exact premise has now been considered and rejected by the 21 Federal Circuit. Dkt. No. 479 at 1-2, 7. Thus, there are no “material facts or dispositive legal 22 arguments” upon which reconsideration would be warranted. Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 23 III. ORDER 24 CCGroup’s motion for leave (Dkt. No. 457) is DENIED. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: April 7, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?