Josef Maatuk v. Emerson Electric, Inc. et al

Filing 86

Order denying Plaintiff's 84 Motion for reconsideration. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker on 8/9/2018. (D,JJ)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEF MAATUK,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMERSON ELECTRIC, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

I.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-03023

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THOMAS M. PARKER

ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Introduction
This intellectual property dispute, involves U.S. Patent 7,775,105 (“the ’105 Patent”),

issued to Defendant Therm-O-Disc, Inc. (“TOD”), by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”), on August 17, 2010. See ECF Doc. 1, ¶ 3. Plaintiff, Josef Maatuk,
developed a technology described as a “multifunction liquid sensing device” (the “sensor
technology”). See ECF Doc. 66, p.3. Maatuk alleged that he, on behalf of his DBA business,
“Max Em,” and TOD entered into a confidentiality agreement (“CDA”) so that TOD could
evaluate Maatuk’s multi-function liquid sensor technology for potential licensing to TOD.
Between 1997 and 1999 Maatuk provided TOD information related to the sensor technology. Id.
In August 1999, TOD informed Maatuk that it had decided not to pursue the opportunity. Id.
But the parties’ relationship, brief though it was, has now spawned three federal lawsuits with
Maatuk twice claiming that TOD misappropriated the trade secret information concerning the
multi-function liquid sensor he provided to pursuant to the CDA. Id.

On August 17, 2010, the USPTO issued the ’105 patent, and listed two TOD employees
as the inventors and TOD as the original assignee. See ECF Doc. 1, p. 2. On August 17, 2016,
Mr. Maatuk filed this Complaint against Emerson Electric, Inc., TOD, and two former TOD
employees, alleging three causes of action: (1) correction of inventorship; (2) misappropriation
of trade secrets; and (3) unjust enrichment. Id. TOD is the only remaining defendant, as the
other defendants were previously dismissed from this matter. See ECF Doc. 28.
On March 17, 2017, TOD filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Doc. 47) and a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF Doc. 48).
On November 14, 2017, I issued a Report and Recommendation in which I recommended
that the court deny TOD’s request for summary judgment on the First Cause of Action and grant
TOD’s motion for summary judgment on the Second and Third Causes of Action. See ECF Doc.
66. On December 4, 2017, Maatuk objected to parts of the Report and Recommendation. See
ECF Doc. 67. On December 8, 2017, TOD filed a response to Maatuk’s objections. See ECF
Doc. 68) On January 24, 2018, the district court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety over Maatuk’s objections. See ECF Doc. 69. On May 15, 2018 the parties consented to
my jurisdiction and on May 30, 2018, Judge Nugent ordered the case to be transferred to the
docket of the undersigned for all further proceedings, including the entry of final judgment. ECF
Docs. 74, 75.
Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the summary judgment order, contending the
decision is “clearly erroneous and should be reversed.” See ECF Doc. 84, Page ID# 1423.
Because Maatuk has failed to demonstrate that the court erred, the motion for reconsideration
must be DENIED.

2

II.

Law and Analysis
Courts should not reconsider prior decisions when the motion for reconsideration either

renews arguments already considered or offers new arguments that could, with due diligence,
have been discovered and offered during the initial consideration of the issue. Bozsik v.
Bradshaw, No. 1:03CV1625, 2012 WL 1095512, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 30, 2012), aff’d sub
nom. Bozsik v. Bagley, 534 F. App’x 427 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing McConocha v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Mutual of Ohio, 930 F.Supp. 1182, 1184 (N.D.Ohio 1996)). However, there are
three situations which justify reconsideration: an intervening change in controlling law; the
availability of new evidence; and the need to correct clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.
Cook v. All State Home Mortg., Inc., No. 106 CV 1206, 2006 WL 3751185, at *4 (N.D. Ohio
Dec. 18, 2006) (citing Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc., v. Allied–Signal, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 644, 669
(N.D.Ohio 1995)).
III.

Analysis
In his motion for reconsideration, Maatuk presents no new evidence or arguments as to

his claim for misappropriation of trade secrets in the ’105 Patent. Maatuk does not respond
directly to the Report and Recommendation, Memorandum Order, or the reasons provided
therein for the grant of summary judgement to TOD on Maatuk’s Second and Third Counts.
Rather, Maatuk reiterates his argument that continuing misappropriation constitutes a single
claim and that if the first claim met the requirements of the statute of limitations, then all
subsequent claims also fall within the statute of limitation. See ECF Doc. 84-1, Page ID# 1428;
see also ECF Doc. 67, p. 9. He made these same arguments and cited the same case law in his
Supplemental Brief to the Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings (ECF Doc. 65) and objections
to the Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. 67), both of which were already considered by
this court. Maatuk’s approach provides no basis for the reconsideration of the prior rulings.
3