Bally Technologies, Inc. v. Business Intelligence Systems Solutions, Inc.

Filing 190

ORDER Denying 179 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 10/16/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

***
)
BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS )
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

2:10-CV-00440-PMP-GWF
ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Bally Technologies, Inc.’s (“Bally”)

14

Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #179), filed on September 13, 2012. Defendant Business

15

Intelligence Systems Solutions, Inc. (“BIS2”) filed an Opposition (Doc. #184) on October

16

1, 2012. Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. #188) on October 11, 2012.

17

The Court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or

18

modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient” so long as the Court has

19

jurisdiction. City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th

20

Cir. 2001) (emphasis and quotation omitted). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district

21

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the

22

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

23

law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

24

1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and

25

arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” In re AgriBioTech, Inc., 319 B.R. 207,

26

209 (D. Nev. 2004).

The Court will deny Bally’s Motion. Bally has not identified any newly

1
2

discovered evidence or an intervening change in the law to support reconsideration. Bally

3

also has not demonstrated the Court’s prior ruling was clearly erroneous. In the original

4

summary judgment briefing, Bally failed to cite any record support for its statement that

5

when BIS2’s software inverts a standard icon, any contour lines surrounding the data point

6

represent data values which are “even lower” than the retrieved data point’s value. (Bally’s

7

Opp’n to BIS2’s Mot. Summ. J. of No Infringement (Doc. #151) at 16.) Bally thus failed to

8

meet its burden of demonstrating a genuine issue of fact remained for trial, and

9

consequently the Court’s Order (Doc. #171) granting summary judgment in BIS2’s favor

10

was not clearly erroneous. On reconsideration, Bally cites to no record evidence for its

11

statements that the contour lines1 around the retrieved data point “must” be less than the

12

retrieved data point displayed by BIS2’s software, that BIS2’s software assigns inconsistent

13

colors to retrieved data values, or that the contour lines surrounding a data point generated

14

by BIS2’s software represent data values less than the actual value of the retrieved data

15

point regardless of how the contour lines graphically are displayed. (Mot. for Recons.

16

(Doc. #179) at 1, 3, 5.) Consequently, the Court will deny reconsideration.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Bally Technologies, Inc.’s Motion

17
18

for Reconsideration (Doc. #179) is hereby DENIED.

19
20

DATED: October 16, 2012
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26

1

BIS2 disputes that its software generates or displays contour lines. In its prior Order (Doc.
#171), the Court assumed without deciding that BIS2’s software generates and displays contour lines,
and the Court does so again on reconsideration.
2