LEE v. JUNG

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING 14 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 8/1/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JONATHAN LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
KYUNG IL JUNG,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-293(MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration
(Doc. 14) of the Court’s Order directing the Defendant to assign his ownership interest
in certain patents to the Plaintiff (Doc. 12). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, “Motions for
Reconsideration shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6.
“Reconsideration is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1) that there has been
an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been discovered which was
not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due diligence, or (3) that the
court made a clear error of law.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga.)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “In order to demonstrate clear error, the
party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate his prior arguments,
and any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier are deemed
waived.” McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1223 (M.D. Ga. 1997)
(emphasis added).

The Defendant has failed to meet his burden. He has alleged no intervening
change in the law and has presented no new evidence not previously available to the
Parties. Further, the Defendant waived his arguments by failing to raise them in a
timely response to the Plaintiff’s motion for assignment of the Defendant’s interest in the
patents (Doc. 11). Even if the Defendant had not waived his arguments, the Court is
not convinced its Order was clearly erroneous.
The Defendant contends the Court’s Order compelling written assignment of the
patents at issue was clearly erroneous because all seizure of property to satisfy a
judgment in Georgia must be done through a levy and sale. However, he cites no
authority stating an interest in a patent or patent application must be transferred through
a levy and sale. Given the intangible nature of interests in patents, other courts have
held that a compelled written assignment of a patent interest is an appropriate method
of satisfying a judgment. See Ager v. Murray, 105 U.S. 126, 130 (1881) (“There would
certainly be great difficulty in assenting to the proposition that patent and copyrights,
held under the laws of the United States, are subject to seizure and sale on execution.
… [T]hese incorporeal rights do not exist in any particular State or district; they are
coextensive with the United States. There is nothing in any act of Congress, or in the
nature of the rights themselves, to give them locality anywhere, so as to subject them to
the process of courts having jurisdiction limited by the lines of States and districts.”);
Sky Techs. LLC v. SAP AG, 576 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A] creditor cannot
reach incorporeal property, such as a patent, due to its intangible nature; the transfer
(either voluntary or involuntary) to a purchaser must be done by written assignment …

.”). Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED, and the
Defendant is directed to comply with the Court’s Order (Doc. 12).1
SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of August, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

The Defendant also points out that the patent and patent applications at issue are co-owned by an
individual who is not a party to this action. However, the Court’s Order directs the Defendant to transfer
only his interest in the patent and patent applications.