Zecotek Imaging Systems Pte ltd et al v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics Inc et al
Filing
260
Order and Opinion: Defendants' motion for reconsideration is denied. (Related Doc # 247 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 8/25/2014. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ZECOTEK IMAGING SYSTEMS PTE
LTD.,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
SAINT-GOBAIN CERAMICS &
PLASTICS, INC., et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-1533
JUDGE SARA LIOI
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s claim construction ruling. (Doc. No. 247.) Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. No. 253),
and defendants have indicated via email that they do not intend to file a reply.
I.
Background
Zecotek Imaging Systems Pte Ltd. (“Zecotek”) has alleged infringement of its
patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,132,060 (“the ‘060 patent”), by defendants Saint-Gobain Ceramics &
Plastics, Philips Healthcare Informatics Inc. dba Philips Healthcare, and Philips Medical Systems
Cleveland, Inc. (collectively, “defendants”). After briefing, an informal tutorial, and a claim
construction hearing, the Court issued its claim construction ruling on May 13, 2014. (Doc. No.
232.)
The following claim language (Claims 1 and 5) was at the heart of the case:
“based on a silicate comprising a lutetium (Lu) and cerium (Ce) characterized in that the
composition of the substance [. . .] is represented by the chemical formula[.]” (Id. at 3885.)
Plaintiffs urged the following construction: “cerium-activated lutetium oxyorthosilicate
represented by the following chemical formula:.” (Id.) Defendants’ final proposed construction
was: “A scintillation substance having a nonstoichiometric congruent composition of the total
basic components of lutetium (Lu) and cerium (Ce) [ . . . ]) and silicon (Si) wherein the
composition of both the substance and the initial charge have the same chemical formula.” (Id. at
3885-86.)
The Court identified the “crux” of claim construction: “whether the claim
language refers to only the substance, or whether it can also refer to the charge and/or melt.” (Id.
at 3886.) Answering this question, the Court noted: “All clear signs point to the conclusion that
Claims 1 and 5 only discuss the final substance, not the charge or the melt.” (Id.) To support this
conclusion, the Court identified several difficulties in the defendants’ proposed construction,
e.g., it ignored Claims 3 and 4 of the patent, which, unlike Claims 1 and 5, specifically claimed
aspects of both the charge and melt, and it improperly read ceramics out of the claim language.
Accordingly, the Court adopted plaintiff’s construction of Claims 1 and 5.
In their motion for reconsideration, defendants ask the Court to determine whether
the named inventors of the patent in suit expressly disclaimed from the scope of their patent
claims scintillation crystals grown from a stoichiometric melt. (Doc. No. 247 at 4060.)
Defendants argue that claim construction is incomplete without an express ruling on the issue of
disclaimer.
In opposition, plaintiff argues that defendants have not met the standard for a
motion for reconsideration because they have not raised any new arguments. Moreover, plaintiff
argues, the Court considered and rejected the disclaimer issue; therefore, plaintiff’s motion
amounts to no more than re-litigation of an adverse outcome. (Doc. No. 253 at 4145-47.)
2
II.
Law and Analysis
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for motions for
reconsideration. Nonetheless, district courts have “inherent powers to reconsider interlocutory
orders and reopen a part of a case before entry of final judgment.” Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d
1273, 1282 (6th Cir. 1991). Motions for reconsideration are not substitutes for appeals. “The
major grounds justifying reconsideration of interlocutory orders are an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F. Supp. 955, 965 (N.D. Ohio 1998) (citing
Petition of U.S. Steel Corp., 479 F.2d 489, 494 (6th Cir. 1973)). The motion for reconsideration
must demonstrate to the Court why it should reconsider its decision and set forth strongly
convincing facts or law which would induce it to reverse its prior holding. Shields v. Shetler, 120
F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Colo. 1988). A motion for reconsideration that presents no arguments that
have not already been raised should be denied.
The Court can identify several different reasons to deny defendants’ motion for
reconsideration. First, it presents no arguments that have not already been raised and decided.
Second, it does not allege a change of controlling law, new evidence or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Third, while the motion purports only to supplement the
Court’s claim construction, it is no more than re-litigation of the Court’s construction of Claims
1 and 5.1 Finally, the underlying issue—whether Saint-Gobain’s crystals grown from
stoichiometric melts infringe the ‘060 patent—requires application of the construed claim
1
The disclaimer currently sought by defendants does not duplicate the claim construction they initially urged. In
their proposed claim construction, defendants sought to limit Claims 1 and 5 to scintillation substances having a
“nonstoichiometric congruent composition[.]” (See Doc. No. 104 at 1033.) Defendants now seek a ruling that the
patent disclaimed crystals grown from stoichiometric melts, but do not seek a ruling or clarification with respect to
“congruent composition” language.
3
language to Saint-Gobain’s crystals and should be decided on summary judgment or at trial.
As both plaintiff and defendants note, the parties raised the issue of disclaimer
during claim construction as it related to Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘060 patent. Defendants asked the
Court to construe the claim language as follows: “A scintillation substance having a
nonstoichiometric congruent composition of the total basic components of (lutetium (Lu) and
cerium (Ce)[. . .]) and silicon (Si) wherein the composition of both the substance and the initial
charge of the melt from which it is grown have the same chemical formula . . . .” (Doc. No. 104
at 1033 (emphasis added).)2 As defendants argued throughout the claim construction process,
their construction accounted for the inventors’ express disclaimer of crystals having noncongruent compositions and grown from stoichiometric melts. (See, e.g., id. at 1034.)
The Court considered construing the claims in light of the disclaimer argued by
defendants, i.e., the claim language encompasses only crystals grown from nonstoichiometric
melts because the patent disclaimed crystals grown from stoichiometric melts, and the Court
decided to adopt plaintiff’s broader claim construction instead. Therefore, defendants’
representation of their motion as an issue “presented but not adjudicated” in claim construction
ignores the context in which the Court ruled. In its claim construction, the Court ruled that the
claim language “only discuss[es] the final substance, not the charge or the melt.” (Doc. No. 232
at 3886.) Moreover, the Court determined that the “addition of the term ‘nonstoichiometric’ [to
the relevant claim language] would needlessly complicate the claims[]” and declined to do so.
(Id. at 3887.) Defendants have already presented this issue to the Court, and the Court rendered
its decision.
2
Defendants later abandoned “of the melt from which it is grown.” (Doc. No. 232 at 3886.)
4
Moreover, defendants offer no basis upon which to reconsider the issue. They
identify no change in the law or new evidence. They do not claim the Court made a clear error of
law or that the Court must reconsider the claim construction to avoid manifest injustice. In short,
defendants have not asserted any basis upon which a court can reconsider an interlocutory order.
For that reason alone, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration.
Defendants discussed disclaimer in the context of Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘060
patent, and those claims were construed. The Court’s next step is to compare the properly
construed claims to the allegedly infringing Saint-Gobain crystals. See Gen. Mills, Inc. v. HuntWesson, Inc., 103 F.3d 978, 981 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is at this next stage that defendants can argue
that a crystal grown from a stoichiometric melt does not infringe the ‘060 patent.
III.
Conclusion
Defendants have already tried and failed to insert “nonstoichiometric melt”
language into claim construction. Re-litigating the claim construction, without any new evidence,
change in controlling law or other basis for reconsideration, is not permissible. Accordingly,
defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 25, 2014
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?