Zest IP Holdings, LLC et al v. Implant Direct MFG. LLC et al

Filing 248

ORDER Denying 216 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 7/17/2013. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ZEST IP HOLDINGS, LLC and ZEST
ANCHORS, LLC,

12
13

vs.

CASE NO. 10cv0541-GPCWVG

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

14
15
16

[Dkt. No. 216]

IMPLANT DIRECT MFG, LLC et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants Implant Direct MFG LLC, Implant Direct LLC and Implant Direct
Int’l (“Implant Direct”) and Defendants Implant Direct Sybron International and
Implant Direct Sybron Manufacturing, LLC (“IDSI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed
a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs Zest IP Holdings,
LLC and Zest Anchors, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Amend Infringement
Contentions. (Dkt. No. 216.) For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion.
BACKGROUND
On April 1, 2011, Plaintiffs served Defendants Implant Direct with the
Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions. (Dkt. No.
107-2 at Ex. 1.) On July 25, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend its preliminary
infringement contentions to add a new GPS product. (Dkt. No. 107.) Subsequently,

-1-

3:10-cv-0541-GPC-WVG

1

Plaintiffs filed a motion to join Defendants IDSI. (Dkt. No. 116.)

2

On April 15, 2013, this Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to

3

join IDSI and motion to amend infringement contentions. (Dkt. No. 202, “Order.”)

4

The Court made three key conclusions in granting Plaintiffs’ motion to amend

5

infringement contentions: (1) Plaintiffs had shown due diligence in seeking to

6

amend the infringement contentions; (2) Defendants would not suffer undue

7

prejudice as a result of the amended contentions; and (3) Plaintiffs proposed

8

amended infringement contentions stated each claim with sufficient particularity to

9

satisfy Patent Local Rule 3.1. (Order at 7-9.)

10

On May 15, 2013, Defendants moved for reconsideration of this Court’s April

11

15 Order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to amend infringement contentions. (Dkt. No.

12

216, “Def. Mtn.”) Defendants contend the Court committed clear error in granting

13

the motion because the amended infringement contentions fail to comply with

14

Patent Local Rule 3.1. (Def. Mtn. at 5.) Defendants further argue the Court’s

15

decision results in manifest injustice because the amended contentions do not

16

provide notice regarding the Plaintiffs’ theory of infringement regarding the GPS

17

internal connection. (Def. Mtn. At 11.)

18

On July 3, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Defendants’

19

motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 234, “Pl. Response.”) Plaintiffs assert

20

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration must be denied because Defendants fail to

21

show any new facts, circumstances, evidence or law as required by Local Rule 7.1.i.

22

and Defendants have not shown the Court committed clear error or the Court’s

23

Order is manifestly unjust. (Pl. Response at 5-10.)

24
25

LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may reconsider an order under either Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 59 (e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b)(relief from

27

judgment). Under the local rules, a party that files a motion for reconsideration of

28

an order must set forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding the motion,
-2-

3:10-cv-0541-GPC-WVG

1

including any new or different facts and circumstances that are claimed to exist

2

which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application. L. Civ. R. 7.1.i.

3

Motions for reconsideration offer an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in

4

the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani,

5

342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if the district

6

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or

7

the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

8

controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d

9

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
DISCUSSION

10
11

As explained below, the Court finds Defendants’ motion for reconsideration

12

does not show the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

13

unjust. Moreover, Defendants rely on previous arguments already considered by

14

this Court and fail to offer any newly discovered evidence or change in

15

circumstances.

16

Defendants contend the Court committed clear error because Plaintiffs have

17

failed to comply with Local Patent Rule 3.1(c). (Def. Mtn. at 5.) Defendants assert

18

the Plaintiffs have not been specific enough in their allegations regarding the new

19

GPS internal connection and failed to explain precisely where each element is

20

located. (Def. Mtn. at 6.) Plaintiffs respond the Court has previously considered

21

this same argument by Defendants’, and correctly found Plaintiffs met the

22

specificity requirement of the Patent Local Rule. (Pl. Mtn at 7-8.) Additionally,

23

Plaintiffs assert they have provided Defendants charts and diagrams with

24

information detailing the location and specifications for the GPS internal abutment.

25

(Id. at 9.)

26

As a preliminary matter, the Court refuses to reconsider the same arguments

27

Defendants previously submitted in opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. The

28

Court has already considered and rejected the argument that Plaintiffs’ proposed
-3-

3:10-cv-0541-GPC-WVG

1

amended contentions lacked specificity pursuant to the Patent Rules. (Order at 9.)

2

Defendants slightly modify their old arguments and focus instead on the GPS

3

internal connection as a separate issue requiring specificity in the amended

4

infringement claims. Upon review of the infringement claims, however, the

5

Defendant’s focus on the internal connection does not change the Court’s previous

6

analysis or findings. Nor do the Defendants offer any new evidence, change in

7

circumstances, or legal authority to warrant a change in this Court’s decision. The

8

cases cited by Defendants merely point to precedent relied upon by this Court in its

9

Order. For these reasons, the Court concludes Defendants have failed to show the

10
11

Court committed clear error.
Moreover, Defendants have not shown the decision is manifestly unjust.

12

Defendants claim they “have no way to know why Plaintiffs contend the GPS

13

internal connection infringes their patents.” (Def. Mtn. 12.) The Court finds this

14

assertion is contradicted by the record. During the hearing before this Court on

15

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend infringement contentions, Plaintiffs provided a

16

thorough explanation replete with charts and samples of their claim regarding the

17

GPS internal connection. (See Dkt. No. 184, “Transcript of Motion Hearing.”)

18

Furthermore, Plaintiffs have produced in their supplemental responses to

19

interrogatories additional information regarding the internal connection. (Pl. Mtn,

20

Exhibits 1-2.) In addition to the infringement contentions, the record clearly shows

21

Defendants are on sufficient notice regarding the internal connection. Accordingly,

22

Defendants have failed to show the decision is manifestly unjust.

23

Nor have Defendants met the requirement of the local rules. Under these

24

rules, Defendants must offer the court new or different facts and circumstances that

25

are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior

26

application. L. Civ. R. 7.1.i. Defendants have not complied with this requirement.

27
28

Accordingly, Defendants have not met their burden to warrant reversal of this
Court’s previous decision.
-4-

3:10-cv-0541-GPC-WVG

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

The Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ motion for reconsideration. (Dkt.
No. 216.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

DATED: July 17, 2013

7
8

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

3:10-cv-0541-GPC-WVG