Olaf Soot Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc., et al

Filing 292

OPINION re: 261 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 258 Memorandum & Opinion,, Grant of Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement filed by Olaf Soot Design, LLC. Based on the conclusions set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 11/27/2018) (mro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff,
15 Civ . 5024
- against OPINION
DAKTRONICS, INC. and
DAKTRONICS HOIST, INC.,
Defendants.

-------------------------------------------x
APPEARANCES:

Attorneys for Plaintiff
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York , NY 10022
By:
James M. Bollinger, Esq.
Timothy P. Heaton, Esq.
Phoenix S. Pak, Esq.
Katherine Harihar, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants
BLANK ROME LLP
405 Lexington Ave
New York , NY 10174
By:
Kenneth L. Bressler, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
7 1 7 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
By:
Russel T. Wong, Esq.
Linh Bui, Esq.

(RWS)

Sweet, D.J.

Plaintiff Olaf Soot Design ("OSD" or "Plaintiff") moves for
reconsideration of this Court 's July 18, 2018 grant of summary
judgment on the issue of willful patent infringement by
Defendant Daktronics Hoist, Inc.

("Daktronics " or "Defendant").

ECF No. 258 . For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration is denied.

Prior Proceedings

On January 30 , 20 1 8 , Defendants moved for partia l summary
judgment on the basis that they had not willfully infringed on
the '4 85 Patent. Dkt. 200. The same day,

Plaintiff moved for

relief under Rule 37, alleging non -compliance with discovery
obligations.

On February 2 2 , 20 1 8 , in response to Plaintiff's Rule 37
motion, Defendants cross -moved this Court for sanctions under 28
U.S.C. § 1 927 , requesting "costs and attorney's fees in
responding to [Plaintiff's] Motion for Relief under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37. " Dkt. 223 , at 1.

1

On March 14, 2018 , Defendant's motions for partial summary
judgment, Plaintiff's motion for Rule 37 relief, and Defendants'
motion for Section 1927 sanctions were heard and marked fully
submitted.

On July 18, 2018 , this Court granted Defendant's motion for
partial summary judgment on the issue of willful patent
infringement, finding that Defendant had shown "by clear and
convincing evidence an absence of evidentiary support for the
essential element of knowledge" of Plaintiff's '4 85 Patent
("Summary Judgment Opinion") . ECF No. 258.

On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff moved to reconsider this
Court's Summary Judgment Opinion. ECF No. 261 . That motion was
taken on submission and marked returnable eon September 5, 2018 .

Applicable Standard

Under Local Rule 6 .3, a party moving for reconsideration
"must demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling
decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the
underlying motion." Eisenmann v . Greene, 204 F.3d 393 , 395 n.2
(2d Cir. 2000)

(quotation marks and citation omitted). "The

major grounds justifying reconsideration are an intervening
2

change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or
the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice." Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.,
956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)

(quotation marks and citation

omitted). The standard for granting such a motion is "strict"
and should only be done when the movant "can point to
controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-matters,
in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the
conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc.,
70 F.3d 255, 257

(2d Cir. 1995). "Such motions are not vehicles

for taking a second bite at the apple," Rafter v. Liddle, 288 F.
App'x 768, 769 (2d Cir. 2008)

(internal quotation marks and

citation omitted), and "should not be granted where the moving
party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided."
Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257.

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is Denied

In its motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff first contends
that this Court "failed to apply the test for willful
infringement as recently expanded by the Supreme Court in Halo
v. Pulse Elecs., Inc." and that the Court "appl[ied] the old
standard." Pl.'s Memo in Supp. at 1. The Court having cited and

3

applied the relevant test for knowledge under Halo 1 , this
contention is without merit. If Plaintiff's argument on
reconsideration is Defendant lacked knowledge of the '485 Patent
but nonetheless willfully infringed, that argument is new. Pl.'s
Memo in Opp. to Summary Judgment at 19, ECF No. 215 ("[T]he
complete record not only demonstrates e x tensive evidence of
knowledge, but strong circumstantial evidence that this
knowledge was sufficiently specific") (emphasis added). And this
Court is limited to reconsidering "matters that were put before
it on the underlying motion." Eisenmann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393,
395 n.2

(2d Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff next avers that this Court "mandate[ed] OSD prove
willfulness with clear and convincing evidence." Pl's Memo in
Supp. at 3. No such mandate was made. Instead, the Court found
that Defendants showed, by "clear and convincing evidence, an
absence of evidentiary support for the essential element of
knowledge." Summary Judgment Opinion at 11. In any event, strict
application of a "preponderance of the evidence" standard to the
issue of willful infringement would not be "reasonably []
1

See Summary Judgment Opinion at 10, ECF. No. 258 (citing
Halo five times for, among others, the proposition that a
finding of willful patent infringement "should generally be
reserved for egregious cases typified by willful misconduct"
and that "intentional or knowing infringement may warrant
enhanced damages").
4

expected to alter the conclusion reached" and therefore cannot
form the basis for a reconsideration grant. See Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257

(2d Cir. 1995).

Finally, Plaintiff contends that the Court committed "clear
error" by recognizing an absence of case law supporting its
position that "knowledge from outside legal counsel is imputable
to a client corporation for the purpose of willful patent
infringement." Summary Judgment Opinion at 13. There, it was
noted that Plaintiff presented no cases where outside legal
counsel's knowledge was imputed to a client corporation for
purposes of willful patent infringement. Id. Plaintiff's
contentions suffer from the same infirmity here. There being no
changes in controlling law, see Doe v. New York City Dep't of
Social Services,

709 F.2d 782, 790 (2d Cir. 1983), the motion

for reconsideration is denied.

5

Conclusion

Based on the conclusions set forth above, Pl aintiff ' s
motion for reconsideration is denied .

It is so ordered .

New York

NY

Novembe?z._7 , 2018
ROBERT W. SWEET
U . S . D . J.

6