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)

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