LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC. et al v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION et al
Filing
327
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr on 11/17/2011. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
__________________________________________
)
LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC. AND
)
LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
) Civil Action No. 09-5142 (GEB)
)
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________________ )
BROWN, Chief Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon a motion for reconsideration filed by LG
Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. (collectively “LG” or “Plaintiffs”) (Doc. No.
309.) LG asks the Court to reconsider its October 4, 2011 decision to grant Whirlpool
Corporation’s (“Whirlpool” or “Defendant”) renewed motion to stay the action. (Doc. No. 3091.) Whirlpool opposes LG’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 320.) The Court has
considered all submissions without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
78. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny LG’s motion for reconsideration.
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2011, Whirlpool moved for a stay of the case pending inter partes re-
examination. In deciding to deny that motion, the Court based its decision in part on the finding
that reexamination could take more than five years. (Order 02/04/11; Doc. No. 82.) While reexamination could simplify issues of validity, a lengthy reexamination would cause undue
prejudice to LG. Additionally, substantial discovery and claim construction remained.
In its September 8, 2011 renewed motion to stay the action, Whirlpool argued that there
had been a material change in the status of the inter partes re-examination of the patents-in-suit.
The Court agreed with Whirlpool’s position and granted its motion to stay the case. In an order
dated October 4, 2011, the Court stayed the case for 6 months, opining:
Although the litigation is in a late stage, the procedural posture of
the inter partes reexamination of all four patents-in-suit has
materially changed since the Court last considered staying the case.
The PTO has rejected all of the asserted claims and new claims
offered by LG for three of the four patents-in-suit. The
reexamination procedures have served their purpose in that they
have simplified issues of validity. Accordingly, the interests of
justice are best served by allowing the inter partes reexaminations
to continue and staying the district court proceedings in order to
promote judicial economy.
(Order 10/04/2011; Doc. No. 306.)
In its present motion, LG takes issues with two statements in the Court’s order. First, LG
argues that the reexamination procedures have not served their purpose in simplifying issues of
validity because no final determination has been rendered. Second, LG insists that the Court
overlooked the substantial amount of time that might remain before a final determination on the
patentability of the patents-in-suit is rendered. Whirlpool opposes LG’s motion for
reconsideration.
II.
DISCUSSION
The standard for reconsideration is high and to be granted sparingly. See NL Indus. v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996). In the District of New Jersey,
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration. It states, in pertinent part, that “[a]
motion for reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 days after entry of the order or
judgment on the original motion by the Judge.” The Third Circuit has made clear that motions
for reconsideration should only be granted in three situations: (1) when an intervening change in
2
controlling law has occurred; (2) when new evidence becomes available; or (3) when
reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law, or to prevent manifest injustice. N.
River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d. Cir. 1995).
The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration only where its prior decision has
overlooked a factual or legal issue that may alter the disposition of the matter. United States v.
Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999). A motion that raises only
disagreement with the Court’s initial decision is not an appropriate reconsideration motion, but
should be dealt with in the appellate process. Bowers v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 130 F.
Supp. 2d 610, 612 (D.N.J. 2001). In other words, “[a] motion for reconsideration should not
provide the parties with an opportunity for a second bite at the apple.” Tischio v. Bontex, Inc., 16
F. Supp. 511, 533 (D.N.J. 1998) (citation omitted).
In the instant case, LG has not offered changes in controlling law or new evidence that
would alter the Court’s prior ruling. LG offers only that the Court’s decision was premised on
two factual errors, and therefore, reversal of the decision is required to prevent manifest
injustice. (Pl.’s Br. at 5; Doc. No. 309-1.) First, LG argues that issues of validity have not been
simplified because there has been no final decision by the PTO. Second, LG maintains that a
final determination on the reexaminations is as many as four years away, contrary to the Court’s
conclusion that the reexaminations are proceeding more quickly than expected. The Court will
address the assertions of factual error in turn.
First, in its decision to grant a six month stay, the Court concluded that the inter partes
reexamination procedures were achieving the objective of simplifying issues of validity. LG
points out that a final determination of the patentability of the patents-in-suit will come only after
LG exhausts its appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and the Court of
3
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Court understands this point now and understood this point
when it decided to stay the case in October. But it does not disparage the fact that the
reexamination procedures have resulted in a situation in which there is a likelihood that claims
asserted in the district court will not survive. That a final determination of invalidity has not
been made does not alter this Court’s disposition of the matter. It would be inefficient to
continue proceedings when a stay will likely simplify the issues and the trial of the case. See
Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 69 F.Supp.2d 404, 406 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).
Second, in its motion for reconsideration, LG insists that the Court was under a false
impression that the reexaminations were moving quickly and that a final determination is
imminent. LG would have the Court ignore what has actually taken place and substitute
statistical evidence of the average pendency of inter partes reexamination. This argument is
questionable at best. In its February 2011 opinion denying a stay of the case, the Court relied on
a prediction that reexamination could take longer than five years. Specifically, in its January
opposition brief, LG noted that the average pendency of inter partes reexamination was over 36
months, not including appeal.
In its opposition to the second motion to stay, and in its current brief to the Court, LG
offers the same argument, namely that the entire reexamination process, including all appeals, is
statistically likely to take as long as four years. Statistical evidence is clearly unconvincing in
the face of an actual timeline. It became apparent that reexamination had proceeded much faster
than expected, a fact the Court noted during the October 4, 2011 hearing. In particular, three of
the four reexaminations have rendered actions closing prosecution and have issued right of
appeal notices in under 12 months, far short of LG’s 36 month prediction. Additionally, the
4
Court notes that there is a status conference scheduled for January 23, 2012, at which time the
status of the reexaminations is to be evaluated.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, LG has failed to meet its high burden in demonstrating clear
factual error. Therefore, LG’s motion for reconsideration is denied. An appropriate form of
order accompanies this opinion.
Dated: November 17, 2011
/s/
Garrett E. Brown_________
GARRETT E. BROWN, JR., U.S.D.J.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?