BAYCHAR INC et al v. BURTON CORPORATION et al

Filing 233

ORDER denying 232 Motion for Reconsideration By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

BAYCHAR, INC.,

ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS v. THE BURTON CORPORATION,
ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL NO. 04-144-B-H

DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In my decision on attorney fees, I denied the defendants a fee award because they did not "contend that [the plaintiff's] expert failed to implicate several of their products as infringing the '810 Patent." 1 Decision and Order on Defs.' Mot. for Att'y Fees at 13 (Docket Item 231). The defendants now attempt to put forth such an argument. See Defs.' Mot. for Reconsideration at 3 (Docket

Item 232). As this argument was not presented in their motion for attorney fees, I

This is in contrast to the motion for attorney fees in the companion case Baychar, Inc. v. Salomon/N. Am., Inc., where the defendant expressly argued that, "[i]n fact, Baychar's own infringement expert did not mention [the accused] products in his report." Def.'s Mot. for Att'ys' Fees, No. 04-136-B-C, at 6 (Docket Item 169).
1

will not consider it now. Accordingly, the defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2