Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation et al

Filing 815

MEMORANDUM ORDER re 785 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Masimo Corporation is DENIED; 784 MOTION for Reargument filed by Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Philips Medizin Systeme Boblingen Gmbh is DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 7/2/14. (ntl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MASIMO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

: Civil Action No. 09-80-LPS-MPT

PHILIPS ELECTRONIC NORTH
AMERICA CORPORATION and
PHILIPS MEDIZIN SYSTEME
BOBLINGEN GMBH,
Defendants.
MASIMO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
: Civil Action No. 11-742-LPS-MPT

v.

PHILIPS ELECTRONIC NORTH
AMERICA CORPORATION and
PHILIPS MEDIZIN SYSTEME
BOBLINGEN GMBH,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
1.

Defendants Philips Electronic North American Corporation and Philips Medizin

Systeme Boblingen GMBH (collectively, "Philips" or "Defendants") move for reargument of the
Court's March 31, 2014 Memorandum Order (D.I. 777), in which the Court overruled Philips'
objection that claims 15, 16, 19, 20, 53, and 54 of U.S. Patent No. 7,215,984 are not infringed.
(D.I. 784) Plaintiff Masimo Corporation ("Masimo" or "Plaintiff') also moves for
reconsideration of the Court's Order (D.I. 777), in which it sustained Defendants' objection that
Defendants did not infringe any of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,632,272.

ll

l

2.

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

l

l

!

l

"sparingly." The decision to grant such a motion lies squarely within the discretion of the district
court. See Dentsply Int'!, 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
rethink a decision already made." Smith v. Meyers, 2009 WL 5195928, at *1 (D. Del. Dec. 30,
2009); see also Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 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 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.
3.

Having reviewed the parties' submissions (D.I. 784, 786, 793, 794), the Court

concludes that neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have met the heavy burden required by their
respective motions. With respect to Philips' motion, the Court did not misunderstand Philips'
argument, but instead rejected it, concluding that the processing modules need not perform one

f
I

I
I

of the three additional functions identified by Philips but may instead utilize a calculator to
perform these functions. With respect to Masimo's motion, the Court agrees with Philips that it
did object to the entirety of the recommendation that Philips' motion for summary judgment of
non-infringement of Masimo's '272 patent be denied, so Masimo's requested clarification to
limit the Court's grant of summary judgment only to literal infringement must be denied.
Additionally, the Court disagrees with Masimo's contention that footnote 28 of the
Memorandum Opinion somehow demonstrates that the Court's reasoning for granting Philips'
motion for summary judgment should be reconsidered.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
A.

Defendants' motion for reargument (D.1. 784) is DENIED.

B.

Plaintiff's motion for reconsiderar::s [NI~

July 2, 2014

UNITED STA TES DISTRIC JUDGE

I
l