Clearline Technologies Ltd. v. Cooper B-Line, Inc. et al

Filing 211

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 205 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Briefing Regarding Calculations of Post-Verdict Damages and Prejudgment Interest ( Evidentiary Hearing set for 3/18/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3A Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison)(Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(sloewe, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CLEARLINE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COOPER B-LINE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-cv-1420
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Court has reconsidered its previous inclination to stay decision of the pending
supplemental and enhanced damages issues until after appeal in this case. The issues are fully
briefed, but the Court requires an evidentiary hearing to determine the extent of the post-verdict
infringement, the profits and other relevant amounts involved, and whether such infringement
was willful. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 18, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Clearline Technologies Ltd.’s (“Clearline”) Motion for
Leave to File Supplemental Briefing Regarding Post-Verdict Damages and Prejudgment Interest.
(Doc. No. 205.) The Court agrees with Defendant Cooper B-Line, Inc. (“Cooper”) that, at least
insofar as it seeks reconsideration of the Court’s previous determination that it would award prejudgment interest according to Cooper’s proposed methodology, Clearline’s Motion is,
effectively, a motion for reconsideration, and the Court will treat it as such.
Though the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for
reconsideration, they are generally analyzed under the standards for a motion to alter or amend a
judgment under Rule 59(e) or a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). See
Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998). The order at

1

issue here is interlocutory, and motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are governed
by Rule 59(e). Thakkar v. Balasuriya, No. H–09–0841, 2009 WL 2996727, at *1 (S.D. Tex.
Sept. 9, 2009). A motion under Rule 59(e) must “clearly establish either a manifest error of law
or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.” Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). Such motions
“cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the
judgment issued. Moreover, they cannot be used to argue a case under a new legal theory.” Id. In
considering a motion for reconsideration, a court “must strike the proper balance between two
competing imperatives: (1) finality, and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all
the facts.” Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). While a
district court has “considerable discretion” to grant or deny a motion under Rule 59(e), id., the
Fifth Circuit cautions that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy that
courts should use sparingly. Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
Here, Clearline does not seek to present newly discovered evidence or legal authority that
would disturb the Court’s previous ruling. For those reasons, Clearline’s Motion is DENIED
insofar as it seeks to supply additional briefing regarding the calculation of pre-judgment
interest. However, the Court will take up all questions relating to supplemental and enhanced
damages at the March 18, 2014 hearing; insofar as Clearline’s Motion seeks to supplement the
record with respect to supplemental and enhanced damages, Clearline may do so at that hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this the tenth day of March, 2014.

KEITH P. ELLISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
2