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

Filing 309

OPINION. For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is granted. Clarification having been provided with respect to parties' Joint Pre-trial Order, parties' final order shall conform with the guidance provided herein. ECF No. 197. It is so ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 12/7/2018) (rjm)

t '
)

y-

UNIT ED STAT ES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF NEW YORK
------ - ----------------------------------- x

OLAF SOOT DESIGN , LLC,
Plaint i ff ,
15 Civ. 5024

(RWS)

- agains t OP I NION
DAKTRONICS , I NC . and
DAKTRONICS HOIST , INC .,
Defendants.

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

lusr~: ~;;~ ~---

Attorneys fo r Pl a i nt i ff
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
875 Third Avenue
New York , NY 10022
By : James M. Bo l linger , Esq .
Timothy P . Heaton , Esq .
Phoenix S . Pak , Esq.
Katherine Harihar , Esq .

Attorneys for Defendants
BLANK ROME LLP
405 Lexington Ave
New York , NY 1 0 1 74
By : Kenneth L . Bressler , Esq .
BLANK ROME LL P
717 Texas Avenue , Su i te 1400
Houston , TX 77002
By : Russel T . Wong , Esq .
Linh Bui , Esq .

DOC1Jf•,l'

ELt:.CI':
1)(';,-.,.
-

[

. t

LDAI_.

2b

, ! .! .Y Fl LED

. - -

_· ..

-I_ -~

l

I
I
I

Sweet, D.J.

Defendant Daktronics, Inc.

("Daktronics " or

"Defendant") moves by l etter motion (ECF No . 306) for
reconsideration of this Court's partial grant of Defendant's
motion in limine (ECF No. 304) , which disallowed testimony that
Defendant " copied " the '4 85 patent, but allowed testimony that
non-party Hoffend "copied" the '4 85 patent. ECF No. 304.

Also by letter motion is Defendant's object i on to
Plaintiff's revised Pre-Trial Order and Jury Instructions

(ECF

No. 283) on the basis that this Court's January 2018 Order (ECF
No. 197) precludes supplements to the Joint Proposed Pre-Trial
Order.

1

For the reasons that follow,

Defendant's motion for

reconsideration is granted and its motion in limine to preclude
reference to copy ing is granted in full. As to Defendant's
l etter motion regarding Plaintiff's substantive edits to the
1

In a January 2018 order granting Defendant's Expedited
Discovery Schedule on the issue of willful patent infringement
(the "January Order") , the Court ordered parties to, among other
things, "supp lement the Joint Proposed Pre-Trial Order
(including the JPO exhibits) and submit to the Court by March
15, 2018 ." ECF No. 197 at 2. "Any such supplementation," the
Court c larified, "shall be limited to issues bearing on OSD's
willful infringement allegations." Id.
1

Joint Pre -tria l Order, see ECF No . 283 , Defendant's position is
adopted. The final pretrial order shall conform with the
guidance provided below.

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
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
2

citat i on omitted) , and " should not be granted where the moving
party seeks sole l y to relitigate an issue already decided ."
Shrader , 70 F .3d at 257 .

Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is Granted

" While copying may be relevant to the obviousness, it
is of no import on the question of whether the claims of an
issued patent are infringed . " Allen Engineer i ng Corp . v . Bartell
Indus. , 299 F.3d 1336 , 1352 (Fed . Cir . 2002).

In view of the limited probat i ve value of ev i dence
Hoffend copied the ' 485 patent , and the risk that such evidence
could confuse the issues before the jury , the motion for
reconsideration is granted.

Upon reconsideration , this Court finds that the risk
of confusion and prejudice to Defendant substantially outwe i ghs
the evidence ' s probative value . Control l ing precedent compels
this f i nding. See Allen Engineering Corp , 299 F.3d at 1352, see
also Watner-Jenkinson Co . v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co ., 528 U. S.
17 , 35 - 36 (1997) ; Shrader v . CSX Transp ., I nc ., 70 F.3d 255, 257
(2d Cir . 1995) (reconsideration proper where movant " point [s ] to
controlling decisions or data that the court over l ooked - matters ,
3

in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the
conclusion reached by the court ." )

Defendant's motion in limine to preclude testimony of
"copying" is therefore granted with respect to Hoffend.

Defendant's Letter Motion Objecting to Substantive
Supplementation of Parties' Joint Pre-trial Order

There being no dispute between parties that this
Court's January Order limited supplementation of parties' Joint
Pre-trial Order to "issues bearing on OSD 's willful infringement
allegations," Olaf 's belated revisions are of no import. ECF No.
1 97 at 2. They are not adopted.

Plaintiff contends that a later-fil ed order by this
Court in October 2018, which provided for "an update in advance"
of a pretrial conference in this case , see ECF No. 285 (the
"October Order"), supersedes the January Order and therefore
allows substantive changes to the Pre-trial Order of March 2018.
ECF No. 285 .

This Court's allowance of an "update," however, did
not modify its earlier January Order , which narrowed
4

substantially the subject matter on which parties could update
their already-agreed-upon Pre-Trial Order. ECF No. 197. In other
words, any "updates" to be provided under the October Order were
to be limited to "issues bearing on OSD's willful infringement
allegations." Id.

Plaintiff's substantive edits to parties' March 2018
Joint Pre-trial Order are contrary to this Court's January 2018
Order.

Plaintiff's substantive revisions to the Joint Pretrial Order of March 2018

(at ECF No. 283) are not adopted by

this Court.

5

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant 's motion for
reconsideration is granted . Clarification having been provided
with respect to parties' Joint Pre-trial Order , parties' final
order shall conform with the guidance provided h erein . ECF No .
1 97 .

It is so ordered.

7,

New York, NY
December
2018

U.S.D.J.

6