M-Edge International Corporation v. LifeWorks Technology Group LLC

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 105 Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Preclude Plaintiff from Pursuing Claims of Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 8/29/2016. (krs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
M-EDGE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff
vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-14-3627

*
Defendant

*

*
*

LIFEWORKS TECHNOLOGY
GROUP LLC,

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO STRIKE

*

The Court has before it Defendant Lifeworks’ Motion for
Reconsideration and/or to Preclude Plaintiff from Pursuing
Claims of Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents [ECF
No. 105] and the materials submitted relating thereto.

The

Court has considered the materials and finds that a hearing is
unnecessary.
As stated by Judge Ramsey in Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers
Co., Inc.:
A motion for reconsideration (or, to alter
or amend judgment) made pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) may be made for one of three
reasons: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law has occurred, (2) evidence
not previously available has become
available, or (3) it is necessary to correct
a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.
771 F. Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); see also Pac. Ins.
Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.

1998).

Such a motion “cannot be used to raise arguments which

could, and should, have been made before [the determination on
which reconsideration is sought was] issued.”

Fed. Deposit Ins.

Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986).
However, “[t]he power to reconsider or modify interlocutory
rulings ‘is committed to the discretion of the district court,’
and that discretion is not cabined by the ‘heightened standards
for reconsideration’ governing final orders.”

Saint Annes Dev.

Co. v. Trabich, 443 F. App’x 829, 832 (4th Cir. 2011)(quoting
American Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514–15
(4th Cir. 2003)).

This does not mean that the court must

disregard the standards applicable to motions to reconsider
under Rules1 59(e) and 60(b), but rather it is “left within the
plenary power of the Court that rendered them to afford such
relief from them as justice requires.” Id. (quoting
Fayetteville Inv’rs v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462,
1473 (4th Cir. 1991)).
Lifeworks, incorporating by reference its prior motions
papers, repeats the same arguments made in support of its
original motion.

A motion that simply repeats contentions that

have already been rejected are not sufficient to convince the
Court to reconsider and are rejected for the reasons stated in
1

All references to Rules herein are to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

2

the challenged order.

Lifeworks requests, in the alternative,

that the Court preclude plaintiff, M-Edge International
Corporation (“M-Edge”), from pursuing claims of infringement
under the doctrine of equivalents pursuant to Rules 16(f)
[Sanctions], 26(e)[Duty to Supplement Disclosures], and
37(b)[Sanctions].
Lifeworks argues that M-Edge failed to properly allege
“doctrine of equivalent” (“DOE”) contentions with regard to
claims 1, 2, and 6, and also failed to supplement or amend those
contentions.

Lifeworks also appears to seek sanctions on the

basis that M-Edge violated the Court’s scheduling order by not
providing sufficient DOE detail in its infringement contentions
charts.
First, M-Edge included DOE allegations in its Complaint and
Amended Complaint.
ECF No. 76.

See Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 1, Am. Compl. ¶ 11,

Second, in its Initial Disclosure of Infringement

Contentions, and in the corresponding Claim Charts, M-Edge
asserts DOE contentions. See ECF Nos. 19, 22.

Further, at the

claim construction hearing, DOE was discussed, although M-Edge
confirmed that discussions between it and Lifeworks had only
been top-level up to that point.

Hr’g Tr. 108:8-15.

Certainly,

Lifeworks has been on notice since day one that M-Edge would be

3

pursuing DOE contentions and has discussed the theory with MEdge.
Lifeworks cites to a number of Federal Circuit cases that
support the exclusion of evidence as an appropriate sanction for
the failure to comply with local patent rules or court orders.
The Court notes that of the cited cases, all but one2 were in the
context of a motion in limine or motion for summary judgment.
See, e.g., O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., 467
F.3d 1355, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(upholding a district court’s
grant of summary judgment where plaintiff failed to timely
provide evidence supporting its theory of infringement); Woods
v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272, 1277 (Fed. Cir.
2012)(granting the motion to strike lodged at the beginning of
the defense case at trial); Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer,
Inc., 822 F.3d 1312, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(finding that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in preventing the
assertion of DOE when it was first contended at the summary
judgment stage); SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d
1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(finding that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in its summary judgment ruling).

2

Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, No. 11 CIV. 6696 KBF,
2012 WL 3158196, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2012), aff’d, 554 F.
App’x 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014) was a complex case with multiple
actions and multiple defendants consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings with a firm trial date.

4

Accordingly,
1.

Defendant Lifeworks’ Motion for Reconsideration
and/or to Preclude Plaintiff from Pursuing Claims
of Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
[ECF No. 105] is DENIED.

2.

This action does not restrict Defendant from
presenting whatever contentions may be
appropriate in regard to any motion for summary
judgment or motion in limine.

3.

The deadlines for completion of expert discovery
and filing of motions for summary judgment remain
as stated in the Court’s prior Order [ECF No.
104].

SO ORDERED, on Monday, August 29, 2016.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

5