IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 101

ORDER - denying 84 Motion to Reconsider or, in the Alternative, Certification of Questions for Interlocutory Appeal. Signed by Judge Randall R. Rader on 1/6/10. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IP INNOVATION L.L.C. and TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION Plaintiffs,
V.

Case No. 2:07-cv-503-RRI{

GOOGLE INC., Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CERTIFICATION OF QUESTIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Before the Court is Defendant Google Inc.'s ("Google") Motion to Reconsider or, In the Alternative, Certifications of Questions for Interlocutory Appeal ("motion to reconsider") (Docket No. 84). This court previously denied Google's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing ("motion to dismiss") on September 21, 2009. Google filed its motion to reconsider on October

5, 2009, and the issue was fully briefed as of October 28, 2009. This case was transferred to me
from Judge Davis on December 21, 2009 (Docket, No. 100), and I heard the parties' oral arguments on Google's motion on December 30, 2000. This court has considered the parties oral arguments and written submissions. While the arguments in Google's original motion to dismiss are well taken, this court detects no "manifest errors of law or fact" that would provide j~is~ification to reconsider Judge Davis's thorough

Dockets.Justia.com

opinion. Lupo v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 4 F.Supp.2d 642, 645 (E.D. Tex. 1997) (quoting Waitman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)). Nor does this court perceive a "pure issue of law,
i

e, a question the appellate court can ~ efficiently on without making an intensive

inqui~ into the record." So~are Rights ~chive, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2009

U.S. Dist. LEXIS

53356, No. 07-511 (E.D. Tex. June 24, 2009) (citing Arextholz v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois, 219 F.3d 674, 676-77 (7th Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to certify any of Google's proposed questions for intetjocaitory appeal. This court therefore finds that Google's motion for reconsideration should be DENIED. It is SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 6th day of January, 2010

I

·I

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE (sitting by designation)

H

Fi,[~t