InterDigital Communications Inc. et al v. Nokia Corporation et al

Filing 529

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 501 MOTION for Reargument of Order Severing Nokia Corporation for Separate Trial. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/29/2015. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., a Delaware corporation,
INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
IPR LICENSING, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and INTERDIGITAL
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
Defendants,

Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-00010-RGA

V.

NOKIA CORPORATION, NOKIA, INC.,
AND MICROSOFT MOBILE OY,
Defendants and
Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument of Order Severing Nokia
Corporation for Separate Trial. (D.I. 501).
Reargument is generally appropriate only when there is: (1) a change in the controlling
law, (2) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact, or to prevent manifest injustice, or (3) new
evidence not available when the judgment was granted. Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
831 F. Supp. 2d 837, 840 (D. Del. 2011). Reargument may also be granted where the court "has
made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties." Schering
Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998). Motions for reargument or
reconsideration may not be used as a means to argue new facts or issues that were not presented
to the Court in the matter previously decided. Apeldyn, 831 F. Supp. 2d at 840 (internal
quotations omitted).

1

Plaintiffs request reargument on the ground that my decision was sua sponte and there
was no opportunity for briefing. (D.I. 522 at p. 1).
Nokia Corporation no longer makes or imports the accused products. (D.I. 512). As I
noted when severing the trials, there is no relief I could grant against Nokia Corporation. (D.I.
491 at 35-36). Plaintiffs have identified none in their motion. I also think there is a significant
likelihood of juror confusion between Nokia, Inc. and Nokia Corporation. I do not see good
reason to keep Nokia Corporation in this action when the trial would not result in any relief
against them. Nokia Corporation's presence would serve only to confuse the jury and
potentially result in multiple opening arguments and examinations.
Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.

Entered this di.day of July, 2015.

I

I

2

I

l
'

I