ICU Medical Inc. v. RyMed Technologies Inc.

Filing 553

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 546 PLAINTIFF ICU MEDICAL, INC.'S MOTION FOR REARGUMENT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE NON-INFRINGEMENT ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE ON ELEMENTS ALREADY DEEMED LITERALLY PRESENT IN THE MODIFIED INVISION-PLUS PRODUCT is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 5/4/12. (ntl)

I

I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ICU MEDICAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 07-468-LPS

v.

RYMED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is PlaintiffiCU Medical, Inc.'s ("ICU") motion requesting
reargument (the "Reargument Motion") of Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude NonInfringement Arguments and Evidence on Elements Already Deemed Literally Present in the
Modified Invision-Plus Product ("Motion in Limine No. 1"). (D.I. 546) By its Reargument
Motion, ICU asks the Court to reconsider its April10, 2012 oral bench ruling denying Motion in
Limine No. 1. (See D.l. 545 at 44-45) ICU's Reargument Motion is DENIED.
I.

LEGALSTANDARDS
Pursuant to Local Rule 7 .1.5, a motion for reconsideration should be granted only

"sparingly." The decision to grant such a motion lies squarely within the discretion of the district
court. See Dentsply Int'l, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 42 F. Supp. 2d 385,419 (D. Del. 1999);

Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1241 (D. Del. 1990). These types of motions
are granted only if the court has patently misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented by the parties, or made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.

See Shering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293,295 (D. Del. 1998); Brambles, 735 F.
Supp. at 1241. "A motion for reconsideration is not properly grounded on a request that a court

I

l
I

rethink a decision already made." Smith v. Meyers, 2009 WL 51195928, at *1 (D. Del. Dec. 30,
2009); see also Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough ofGlendon, 836 F. Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D. Pa.
1993). It is not an opportunity to "accomplish repetition of arguments that were or should have
been presented to the court previously." Karr v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1093 (D. Del. 1991).
A motion for reconsideration may be granted only if the movant can show at least one of
the following: (i) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of
new evidence not available when the court made its decision; or (iii) there is a need to correct a

J

~

clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. See Max's Seafood Cafe by LouAnn, Inc.

\

v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). However, in no instance should reconsideration
be granted if it would not result in amendment of an order. See Schering Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d at
295.

II.

DISCUSSION
In its Reargument Motion, ICU contends the Court erred in its ruling and exercise of

discretion with respect to issue preclusion. (See generally D.l. 546) Having considered ICU's
Reargument Motion, and Defendant's response thereto, the Court finds nothing in the motion
compelling revisit of the matter. The Court agrees with Defendant that ICU's Reargument
Motion "largely just repeats argument that it made in the prior briefing of its Motion in Limine
and at the pretrial conference." (D.I. 551 at 2) Accordingly, ICU's Motion is DENIED.

May4, 2012

1
1
I
'l

1
I

J

I
I