NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION v. POSCO et al

Filing 235

OPINION & ORDER denying 196 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 9/9/2014. (nr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
__________________________________________
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
v.
:
:
:
POSCO et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________:
NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL
CORPORATION,

Civil Action No. 12-2429 (SRC)

OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s
Opinion and Order entered June 4, 2014 (the “Opinion”) by Defendants POSCO and POSCO
America Corporation (collectively, “POSCO”). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be
denied.
“A court may grant a motion for reconsideration if the moving party shows one of the
following: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence
that was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of
law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” See Banda v. Burlington County, 263 Fed. Appx.
182, 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999)); L. CIV. R. 7.1(i).
POSCO seeks reconsideration of that portion of the Opinion which dealt with their
arguments that certain claim terms were indefinite. POSCO contends, correctly, that the

Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120,
2129 (2014), changed the legal standard for a finding that patent claims are invalid for
indefiniteness. The question is what impact that change has on the reasoning that this Court
relied on in its Opinion; the answer is none, no impact. Even the most cursory reading of the
Opinion reveals that this Court entirely rejected POSCO’s original indefiniteness argument for a
number of reasons. Nautilus has had no impact on any of those reasons. There is no basis for
reconsideration.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 9th day of September, 2014
ORDERED that POSCO’s motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 196) is
DENIED.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.

2