ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al

Filing 991

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 10/14/2015. (nkl, )

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

CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:13-CV-1112-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim
Construction Decision Based on Intervening Supreme Court Authority. (Dkt. No. 480.)
Defendant Apple joined the motion on April 13, 2015. (Dkt. No. 490.) Also before the Court is
the response of Plaintiff ContentGuard, Defendants’ reply thereto, and Plaintiff’s sur-reply
thereto. (Dkt. Nos. 552, 581, 606.)
The Court held a hearing on this motion in conjunction with a hearing on various posttrial motions on September 1, 2015. (See Dkt. No. 901, 9/1/2015 Hr’g Tr.)
BACKGROUND
This Court received claim construction briefing, and held a claim construction hearing on
February 6, 2015. (Dkt. No. 423, 2/6/2015 Hr’g Tr.) The Court entered a Memorandum Opinion
and Order on claim construction on March 20, 2015. (Dkt. No. 459.) In that Order, the Court
held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) prior construction of the term
“repository” was not binding on this Court. (Dkt. No. 459 at 13.)
Defendant now moves for reconsideration of the above-mentioned Order in light of B&B
Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015), in which the Supreme Court

held that a trademark registration decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”)
gave rise to issue preclusion in subsequent litigation in a district court where both the TTAB and
the district court applied the same legal standard for likelihood of confusion. Id. at 1306–07.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Motions to reconsider serve a very limited purpose: “to permit a party to correct manifest
errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence.” Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 212
F.R.D. 329, 331 (W.D. Tex. 2002); accord Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Hyundai Elecs Indus., Co.,
50 F. Supp. 2d 619, 621 (E.D. Tex. 1999). Only three grounds permit granting a motion to
reconsider: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not
previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
injustice.” In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002).
Mere disagreement with a district court’s order does not warrant reconsideration of that
order. Krim, 212 F.R.D. at 332. A party should not restate, recycle, or rehash arguments that
were previously made. Id. at 331. Rather, “litigants are expected to present their strongest case
when the matter is first considered.” Louisiana v. Sprint Commc’ns. Co., 899 F. Supp. 282, 284
(M.D. La. 1995).
ANALYSIS
First, the Supreme Court was clear in stating that the rule in B&B Hardware, even when
applied in trademark matters, does not establish a per se rule of preclusion for trademark disputes
between the same parties. Id. at 1306–09. This is a patent case and not a trademark case.
Therefore, it is far from clear that the Supreme Court intended for its narrow holding in B&B
Hardware to per se extend to patent proceedings involving different parties.
Second, the Supreme Court’s analysis in B&B Hardware hinged on the fact that the legal
standard of “likelihood of confusion” for purposes of registration before the TTAB was the same
-2-

standard as “likelihood of confusion” for purposes of infringement in the district court. Id. at
1307. Patent law, in contrast, dictates that the PTAB and the district courts use different
standards for claim construction. In re Cuozzo, 778 F.3d 1271, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The
PTAB uses the “broadest reasonable” construction. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In contrast, a district
court must determine the “ordinary and customary” construction. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, because the claim construction standards are different
between the district court and the PTAB, B&B Hardware does not apply.
Further, to the extent that B&B Hardware is applicable in a case where the district court
and administrative agency each apply a different standard, the Court disagrees with Defendants
that the two constructions in this case create an “anomalous result.” (Dkt. No. 480 at 6.)
The Court concludes that B&B Hardware does not warrant modification of the decisions
and conclusions challenged by Defendants. Defendants have offered no other basis to warrant

.
reconsideration of the Court’s prior claim construction order. As a result, the Court rejects
Defendants’ request to modify the Court’s claim construction rulings.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Decision Based on Intervening
Supreme Court Authority. (Dkt. No. 480.)

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of October, 2015.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-