Linear Group Services, LLC v. Attica Automation, Inc.

Filing 69

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 64 Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Calim Construction. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (Bankston, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINEAR GROUP SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-10108
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

vs.

ATTICA AUTOMATION, INC.,
Defendant,
vs.
ND INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Counter-Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION [#64]
On February 12, 2014, this Court entered an order regarding claim construction.
See Dkt. No. 60. This Court’s February 12, 2014 Order concluded that the three terms at
issue should be given their ordinary and customary meanings. Id. at 14. Plaintiff now moves
for partial reconsideration of this Court’s February 12, 2014 decision.
Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan provides:
[M]otions for rehearing or reconsideration which merely present the same issues
ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall not be
granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of
the case must result from a correction thereof.
E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is ‘a defect that is obvious, clear,

unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” United States v. Lockett, 328 F. Supp. 2d 682, 684 (E.D.
Mich. 2004) (citing United States v. Cican, 156 F. Supp. 2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001)).
“[A] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old arguments
or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were not.” Smith ex rel.
Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)).
Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, this Court was not mislead by Attica’s position, nor
did the Court erroneously use the specification to broaden the scope of the claim. Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which this Court has been mislead, the
correction of which will result in a different disposition of this case.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration [#64] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2014

/s/Gershwin A Drain
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
March 12, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail
/s/ Tanya Bankston
Deputy Clerk