Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. P3 International Corporation

Filing 208

OPINION & ORDER re: 167 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 164 Memorandum & Opinion, . filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., 175 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 164 Memorandum & Opinion, . filed by P3 International C orporation. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 2018 Order is DENIED, and the Court clarifies that opinion as necessary in accordance with Defendant's motion for reconsideration. In lig ht of the parties' January 3, 2019 stipulation, which this Court so-ordered on January 8, 2019, all other claims in this action have been resolved. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in accordance with the Court's September 30, 2018 Order as to Plaintiffs claims based on the '207 and '626 patents and to close this case. Consistent with the parties' stipulation, the Court will retain jurisdiction over any subsequent application for an award of nontaxable costs and attorney's fees. As the magistrate judge denied Defendant's previous application for fees without prejudice on August 9, 2019, Defendant may refile any such motion in accordance with the magistrate judge's orders. Dkt. No. 207. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 167 and 175. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 8/16/2019) (kv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.,
Plaintiff,
16-CV-6276 (AJN)

-vOPINION & ORDER
P3 International Corp.,
Defendant.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. brings various claims for patent infringement against
Defendant P3 International Corporation. On September 30, 2018, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and granted in part and denied in
part Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 164 [hereafter, "September 2018
Order"]. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of that order and
Defendant's motion for reconsideration "or clarification" of that order. Dkt. Nos. 167, 175.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Although Defendant's motion for reconsideration was largely resolved by the parties' subsequent
stipulation, see Dkt. No. 204, the Court briefly addresses it below.

I.

BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with this matter, the factual background of which is more

fully described in the Court's September 2017 and September 2018 Orders. See Dkt. Nos. 116,
164.

1

The parties' cross-motions were filed on January 19, 2018 and February 19, 2018,
respectively, and fully briefed by April 2, 2018. Dkt. Nos. 134, 149, 158, 161. After the Court
granted in part and denied in part each party's motion, and after each party submitted motions for
reconsideration concerning portions of the Court's September 2018 Order, the parties filed a
stipulation agreeing to dismiss Plaintiffs claims of infringement of its '006, '282, '988, '693,
and '867 patents. Dkt. No. 204 ,r,r 1. Accordingly, the Court summarizes here only those
portions of its September 2018 Order and the parties' reconsideration motion that are pertinent to
Plaintiffs '207 and '626 patents.
In its September 2018 Order, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary
judgment as to Plaintiffs claims that Defendant's products infringed the asserted claims of
Plaintiffs '207 and '626 patents. Dkt. No. 164 at 14-23. The Court also granted in part and
denied in part Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, including granting Plaintiffs
motion as to the validity of several of its patents and dismissing Defendant's third affirmative
defense (anticipation), fourth affirmative defense (on-sale bar as to '207 claims), and
counterclaim I (declaratory judgment of patent invalidity). Id. at 25.
Now, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's conclusion as to the invalidity of the
asserted claims of its '207 patent. See Dkt. No. 168. In a submission that is now largely moot,
Defendant sought "reconsideration or clarification" of the Court's dismissal of the above-listed
affirmative defenses and counterclaims. See Dkt. Nos. 175, 204. Finally, should the Court deny
Plaintiffs reconsideration motion, the parties have stipulated to the Court's entry of final
judgment in accordance with its September 2018 Order as to Plaintiffs claims based on the '207
and '626 patents. See Dkt. No. 204 ,r 4.

2

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
"A motion for reconsideration should be granted only when the [moving party] identifies

an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct
a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil ofTartikov, Inc. v. YLL
Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). This

standard '"is strict' because 'reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources."'
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. P3 Int'l Corp., 16-CV-6276 (AJN), 2018 WL 401511, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.

Jan. 12, 2018) (quoting Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir.
2012) and In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)).
Accordingly, "[a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance new facts, issues or
arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for relitigating
issues already decided by the Court" R.FMA.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509
(S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quotation omitted). The decision whether to grant such a motion "rests within
the sound discretion of the district court." Callari v. Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc., 988 F.
Supp. 2d 261,287 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).

III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiff's Motion Relitigates Decided Issues and Presents No Clear Error or
Controlling Law

The Court turns first to Plaintiffs motion. Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the
Court's grant of summary judgment for Defendant on the basis that the on-sale bar invalidated
the asserted claims the '207 patent.
As to that issue, the Court's September 2018 Order held that Plaintiffs infringement

3

allegations proved anticipation of its own patent claims under the on-sale bar. September 2018
Order at 14-20. As the Court explained, the on-sale bar ordinarily applies when "the patentee
has placed some device on sale prior to the critical date" one year prior to the filing of the patent
application and the accused infringer successfully demonstrates, by clear and convincing
evidence, "that th[ e] device actually embodied or rendered obvious the patented invention."
Evans Cooling Sys., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 125 F.3d 1448, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1997), abrogated
on other grounds by Pfaffv. Wells Electrs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 66-68 & n.11 (1998). However,
"this burden is [also] met by [a patentee's] allegation" that a product on sale prior to the critical
date infringed its patent. Id.; see also Vanmoor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 201 F.3d 1363, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2000).
Applied to this case, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs infringement contentions met
the standard articulated in Evans Cooling Systems and Vanmoor. As the Court explained,
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's P7880 Bug Trap infringed claims of its '207 patent. Defendant
had placed two separate orders for the P7880 Bug Trap, one prior to and one following the
critical date. Because Plaintiff alleged only that the P7880 product infringed the asserted patent
claims, without distinguishing between the pre- and post-critical date orders for that product, the
Court concluded that its infringement allegations proved invalidity of those patent claims.
Plaintiff makes assorted arguments that this determination was incorrect, but none warrant
reconsideration of the Court's order.
Plaintiffs first three arguments rest on a single faulty premise. Specifically, Plaintiff
interprets the Court's decision on Plaintiffs '207 infringement claim as predicated on the
assumption that the products included in Plaintiffs damages calculation included products from

4

both of the product orders at issue in this case. Pl.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 168 at 4-5. According to
Plaintiff, the Court erred in construing Plaintiff's damages admissions as sufficient to establish
· invalidity because patent liability and damages are determined separately, at different stages of
the analysis, and subject to different standards of proof. Plaintiff argues that the Court's
improper consideration of its damages arguments led the Court to erroneous fact-finding
regarding the source of the products in this calculation; to conflation of the appropriate standards
applicable at the infringement liability and damages phases of the litigation; and to failing to
afford Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to be heard on either point in violation of procedural due
process. See id. at 7-10, 5-7.
But the interpretation on which this argument is premised is flawed: the Court's
invalidity determination rested on Plaintiff's infringement allegations, and specifically on the
indiscriminate nature of such allegations. It is true that the Court briefly noted that the same
elision between product orders occurred in both Plaintiff's infringement allegations and its
damages argument. But this reference was meant merely to capture both parties' consistent
treatment of the batches as identical, not as a basis for the Court's reasoning, which selfevidently rested on the congruence of Plaintiff's infringement allegations with Defendant's entire
product batch. Accordingly, the September 2018 Order's treatment of Plaintiff's damages
analysis does not warrant reconsideration for any of the reasons Plaintiff has identified.
Stripped of this misunderstanding, all that remain in Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
are arguments the Court considered and rejected in its September 2018 Order. But a
reconsideration motion is not an appropriate vehicle to relitigate issues already decided by the
Court. Davidson v. Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458,461 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Plaintiff does not justify

5

raising these arguments again by identifying either an intervening change in controlling law or
the availability of new evidence. Nor do its arguments, which are no more convincing at this
juncture than they were in the original summary judgment briefing, rise to the high bar of
warranting reconsideration to correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied.

B.

Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification Is Resolved

Defendant's one-page "motion for reconsideration or clarification" asks that the Court
"clarify" whether Defendant's third and fourth affirmative defenses and first counterclaim
remain in the case to the extent those defenses and counterclaims are consistent with the grounds
on which the Court granted summary judgment. Dkt. No. 175. In response, Plaintiff suggests an
additional clarification concerning the Court's disposition as to the '988 patent and the Court's
finding of invalidity with respect to the '207 patent. Dkt. No. 183. However, in January 2019,
the parties entered a stipulation resolving all claims relating to patents other than the '207 and
'626 patents and agreeing that only Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and Defendant's
application for fees as to the '207 and '626 patents remained pending. Dkt. No. 204.
To the extent any such clarifications are necessary, the Court affirms its summary
judgment conclusion that the asserted claims of '207 are invalid under the on-sale bar in
accordance with Defendant's arguments and affirmative defenses to this effect. Given the
parties' stipulation of dismissal of the remaining claims and the Court's disposition of Plaintiffs
reconsideration motion, the Court concludes that it is unnecessary to address this issue further.

6

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the Court's September

2018 Order is DENIED, and the Court clarifies that opinion as necessary in accordance with
Defendant's motion for reconsideration.
In light of the parties' January 3, 2019 stipulation, which this Court so-ordered on
January 8, 2019, all other claims in this action have been resolved. Accordingly, the Clerk of
Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in accordance with the Court's September 30,
2018 Order as to Plaintiffs claims based on the '207 and '626 patents and to close this case.
Consistent with the parties' stipulation, the Court will retain jurisdiction over any subsequent
application for an award of nontaxable costs and attorney's fees. As the magistrate judge denied
Defendant's previous application for fees without prejudice on August 9, 2019, Defendant may
refile any such motion in accordance with the magistrate judge's orders. Dkt. No. 207.
This resolves Dkt. Nos. 167 and 175.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August
, 2019
New York, New York

7