Thermapure Inc v. Just Right Cleaning & Construction Inc
Filing
157
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA - denying 103 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 107 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 131 Motion to Strike ; denying 149 Motion to Strike ; and granting 151 Motion to Expedite. Transfering case to Central District of California. Signed by Senior Judge Robert H. Whaley. (CC, Case Administrator)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
THERMAPURE, INC.,
8
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11
JUST RIGHT CLEANING &
CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant.
12
No. CV-11-0431-RHW
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
INTER ALIA
13
14
Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendant’s Motion for
15
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, ECF
16
No. 103; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 107; (3) Defendant’s
17
Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration, ECF
18
Nos. 131, 133; and (4) Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike
19
Portions of Def.’s Reply Brief filed in Support of Def.’s Motion for Attorneys’
20
Fees and Costs, ECF No. 149. The Court held a telephonic hearing in the above-
21
captioned matter on October 1, 2013. Plaintiff Thermapure was represented by Phil
22
McCune, J. Chad Mitchell, and Sean Kneafsey. Joel Ard argued on behalf of
23
Defendant Just Right. The Court is now fully informed, having reviewed all
24
documents filed in support of, and in opposition to, each motion, and enters the
25
following Order.
26
///
27
///
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 1
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
2
BACKGROUND
As the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background of the
3
case, the Court need not recite them here, except as necessary to rule on the
4
pending motions. On July 2, 2013, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for
5
Reconsideration. See Order Granting Def.’s Mot. for Reconsideration (hereafter
6
“the Order”), ECF No. 98. In the Order, the Court found that Claim No. 6 of the
7
‘812 Patent included a “targeted organism” limitation and adopted Defendant’s
8
claim construction of the claim term “predetermined temperature” to mean a
9
“temperature selected in advance [to be reached within the structure] that is
10
sufficient to kill substantially all of the targeted organisms.” Id. at 12. The Court
11
then construed the claim term “high temperature / heated gas” to mean “a gas that
12
has been heated to a temperature sufficient to promptly kill targeted organisms.”
13
Id. As noted by the Court, this prior construction of the disputed claim terms had
14
been adopted by two other district courts construing Claim No. 6 of the ‘812
15
Patent. Id. at 11-12.
16
The Court then found that Plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to create a
17
question of fact as to the correlation of a predetermined temperature and a targeted
18
organism – in this case mold. Id. at 13. As there was no evidence that Defendant
19
“identifie[d] organisms to target with heat,” there [was] no infringement of Claim
20
No. 6. Consequently, the Court vacated its prior order and granted Defendant’s
21
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Id. at 14.
22
The Court also required the parties to show cause why Defendant’s
23
remaining invalidity counterclaim should not be transferred to the Central District
24
of California, to be consolidated with two other pending and related actions
25
asserting identical claims. Id. at 14. On July 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a timely
26
response informing the Court that it had no objection to the transfer, pending the
27
Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. See ECF No. 106.
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 2
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
2
DISCUSSION
I.
Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
3
A.
4
A district court has discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to a
Legal Standard
5
prevailing party in a patent case if the court determines that the case is
6
“exceptional.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. When deciding whether to award attorney fees
7
under § 285, a district court engages in a two-step inquiry: First, the court must
8
determine whether the prevailing party has proved by clear and convincing
9
evidence that the case is exceptional. MarcTec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson, 664
10
F.3d 907, 915-16 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). Second, if the
11
district court finds that the case is exceptional, it must then determine whether an
12
award of attorney fees is justified. Id.
13
A case may be deemed exceptional under § 285 where there has been
14
“willful infringement, fraud or inequitable conduct in procuring the patent,
15
misconduct during litigation, vexatious or unjustified litigation, conduct that
16
violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, or like infractions.” Serio–US Indus.,
17
Inc. v. Plastic Recovery Techs. Corp., 459 F.3d 1311, 1321–22 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
18
Where, as here, the alleged infringer prevails in the underlying action,
19
factors relevant to determining whether a case is exceptional include “the closeness
20
of the question, pre-filing investigation and discussions with the defendant, and
21
litigation behavior.” Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366,
22
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Where a patentee “prolongs litigation in bad faith, an
23
exceptional finding may be warranted.” Id.
24
In addition, absent litigation misconduct or misconduct in securing the
25
patent, a district court can award attorney fees under § 285 only if the litigation is
26
both: (1) brought in subjective bad faith; and (2) objectively baseless. Old Reliable
27
Wholesale, Inc. v. Cornell Corp., 635 F.3d 539, 543 (Fed.Cir.2011) (internal
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 3
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
citation omitted) (emphasis added). Under this standard, a patentee's case “must
2
have no objective foundation, and the plaintiff must actually know this.” iLOR,
3
LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Whether a case is
4
objectively baseless requires an “objective assessment of the merits.” Id.
5
Finally, Section 1927 provides:
6
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of
the United States . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any case
unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy
personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably
incurred because of such conduct.
7
8
9
10
28 U.S.C. § 1927.
11
B.
Defendant’s Motion
12
Defendant argues that Plaintiff: (1) failed to conduct an adequate
13
investigation, prior to, or after filing suit; (2) sought construction of claim terms
14
that was frivolous, and; (3) engaged in vexatious and unjustified litigation which
15
unduly multiplied the proceedings. ECF No. 103 at 5-10. Defendant also argues
16
that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was objectively baseless, and was pursued in subjective bad
17
faith. Id. at 5.
18
Plaintiff responds in opposition that its pre-filing investigation was adequate,
19
its claim construction briefing was not frivolous, its conduct is not even remotely
20
sanctionable (as there was no bad faith conduct), and the case is neither objectively
21
nor subjectively baseless. ECF No. 113 at 4-20.
22
The undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiff received a jury verdict of
23
infringement against Water Out Corporation in a related action in 2006. Kneafsey
24
Decl., ECF No. 114, at Ex. 14; see also ECF No. 75 at 4. Moreover, Plaintiff
25
contended that Defendant Just Right, a Water Out licensee located in Eastern
26
Washington, allegedly utilized the same equipment found to infringe Plaintiff’s
27
‘812 Patent in its successful suit against Water Out litigated in the Eastern District
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 4
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
of Texas. ECF No. 75 at n. 2. In light of the jury’s verdict in the Texas Action,
2
Plaintiff targeted licensees, including Defendant, of the now defunct Water Out
3
Corporation.
4
Here, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff, and its attorneys, have submitted
5
more than adequate evidence of a pre-filing investigation conducted prior to filing
6
the suit and this case is not exceptional. See ECF No. 113 at 4-5.
7
Moreover, “[d]efeat of a litigation position, even on summary judgment,
8
does not warrant an automatic finding that the suit was objectively baseless,” just
9
as the record in this case does not support a finding that Plaintiff pursued
10
objectively baseless infringement claims. MarcTec, LLC, 664 F.3d at 918; see also
11
ECF No. 113 at 18-19. Thus, the Court concludes that Defendant cannot meet its
12
burden and prove by clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff’s claims were
13
objectively baseless or that the instant case is exceptional.
14
Finally, there simply is no evidence that Plaintiff engaged in vexatious or
15
unjustified litigation conduct that prolonged unnecessarily the instant proceedings.
16
As noted by the Federal Circuit, “[i]nfringement is often difficult to determine, and
17
a patentee’s ultimately incorrect view of how a court will find does not of itself
18
establish bad faith.” iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc., 631 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.
19
2011). In this case, although Plaintiff sought a different construction of the claim
20
terms “predetermined temperature” and “high temperature/heated gas” in the
21
Illinois action, the Court concludes this does not amount to vexatious or unjustified
22
litigation, as Plaintiff sought a similar claim construction adopted in the Texas
23
action, where only Claim 6 was at issue. See ECF No 113 at 12. Here, although
24
unsuccessful, Plaintiff justifiably argued that Defendant’s proposed construction of
25
reading claim terms from Claim 4 into Claim 6 violated the doctrine of claim
26
differentiation. See Envtl. Design v. Union Oil, 713 F.2d 693, 699 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 5
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
Thus, the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s conduct does not rise to the level of
2
vexatious and Defendant’s motion is denied on this basis as well.
3
Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and denies
4
Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
5
II.
6
7
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Reply filed in support of
Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Plaintiff moves to strike new arguments and inadmissible evidence raised in
8
Defendant’s reply brief. ECF No. 149 at 2-5. Specifically, Plaintiff moves to strike:
9
(1) Defendant’s arguments regarding the draft License Agreement between
10
Thermapure’s President Dave Hedman and Just Right’s President Ben Justesen.
11
See J. Ard Decl., ECF No. 148 at 5-43; and (2) Arguments regarding a chart
12
attached to the Declaration of Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Sean Abbott. See Abbott Decl.,
13
ECF No. 130-2, Ex. 30 at 1-15.
14
Defendant responds that the License Agreement demonstrates that Plaintiff’s
15
lawsuit was not only filed without pre-filing investigation, but was also vexatious.
16
ECF No. 152. Defendant claims the License Agreement demonstrates that
17
Thermapure tried to “extort” an unreasonable settlement of a baseless claim by
18
threatening to impose a $150,000 license plus 5% of Defendant’s royalties in order
19
to settle the lawsuit. Id. at 1-6. In regard to the Abbott declaration, Defendant
20
argues it is both relevant and admissible. Id. at 6-8. Finally, Defendant asserts that
21
Plaintiff obscured evidence of the lethal temperature required to kill certain strains
22
of mold and further evidence that Plaintiff engaged in vexatious litigation, and
23
again, did not conduct adequate pre-filing investigation. Id.
24
Plaintiff is correct in that the general rule is that litigants may not raise a new
25
issue for the first time in a reply brief. Coos Co. Bd. Of Co. Comm.v. Kempthrone,
26
531 F.3d 792, 812 n.16 (9th Cir. 2008). However, the Court has already found that
27
Plaintiff’s pre-filing investigation was adequate and their litigation strategy was
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 6
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
not vexatious. Thus, because the Court has previously denied Defendant’s Motion
2
for Attorneys’ Fees, the evidence that Plaintiff seeks to strike does not impact that
3
decision, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied.
4
III.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
5
A.
6
Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
Reconsideration Standard
7
interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc.
8
v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for
9
reconsideration brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is appropriate “if the district
10
court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or
11
the decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
12
controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
13
1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored,
14
and may not be used to present new arguments or evidence that could have been
15
raised earlier. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). In
16
addition, where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, a court has inherent
17
jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke it. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v.
18
Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005). Motions for reconsideration are
19
committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and reviewed for abuse of
20
discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262.
21
B.
22
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Court’s prior order granting
Plaintiff’s Motion
23
Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 98. Plaintiff argues that
24
reconsideration is appropriate because deposition testimony obtained in February
25
and March of 2013, months after Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration was
26
fully briefed, contradicts the Declaration of Ben Justesen (President and Owner of
27
Just Right), ECF No. 17-1, upon which the Court relied in its prior order granting
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 7
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
partial summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s sole infringement claim.
2
ECF No. 107 at 1.
3
Plaintiff asserts a triable issue of fact remains as to whether Defendant
4
“identified organisms to target with heat.” Id. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that
5
Defendant: (1) identifies whether mold is in a structure prior to drying, (2)
6
determines a specific (predetermined) temperature because deposition testimony
7
reveals defendant utilized the Water Out factory pre-set temperature, and (3)
8
identifies mold to target with heat. Id.
9
Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s evidence is not “new” for the purposes of
10
Rule 59(e), and does not provide a permissible basis for reconsideration. ECF No.
11
118 at 4. Defendant counters that Plaintiff’s dilatory conduct in deposing witnesses
12
until the final days of discovery does not now make it “new evidence.” Id.
13
Defendant also responds that even if the Court considers Plaintiff’s evidence,
14
“there is no evidence a temperature used by Just Right, wherever measured, or by
15
whom selected is sufficient to promptly kill targeted organisms.” Id. at 4-5.
16
Defendant argues that Plaintiff incorrectly assumes the existence of the thermostats
17
in the Water Out trailers meet the claim limitation of selecting a predetermined
18
temperature inside the structure. Id. at 6.
19
Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its prior order, ECF No. 98,
20
because it did not have the benefit of the Court’s claim construction ruling. See
21
ECF No. 128 at 1, 8. Consequently, Plaintiff asserts that new facts and law exist
22
which preclude summary judgment. Id. As Defendant points out, however,
23
Plaintiff’s motion does not identify any statutory or case authority for the requested
24
relief, so the Court presumes that Plaintiff is proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P.
25
59(e). See ECF No. 118 at 3.
26
27
28
To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion because of newly discovered evidence,
the movant must show the evidence: (1) is truly “newly discovered”; (2) could not
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 8
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
have been discovered through the exercise of “due diligence”; and (3) is of such a
2
magnitude that production of it earlier would have likely changed the disposition
3
of the case. Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211
4
(9th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, a Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to raise
5
arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could have reasonably
6
been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,
7
229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). The failure to file documents in an original
8
motion or opposition does not turn the late filed documents into “newly discovered
9
evidence.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262.
10
First, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that it did not have the benefit of
11
the Court’s prior claim construction Order. Plaintiff’s argument is without merit, as
12
the Court adopted the claim construction already accepted by two other district
13
courts that previously construed the disputed claim terms at issue in this case
14
regarding Claim No. 6 of the ‘812 Patent. See ECF No. 98 at 4-9. Thus, the Court
15
finds this does not provide a basis for reconsideration and does not fall within the
16
scope of Rule 59(e)’s purpose.
Second, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s deposition
17
18
testimony, 1 taken in February and March of 2013, is not “newly discovered
19
evidence,” which the Court notes could have reasonably been discovered prior to
20
the Court’s ruling and as early as February of 2012 -- one year prior to the
21
depositions of Just Right’s employees in February and March of 2013. See, e.g.,
22
Frederick S. Wyle, P.C. v. Texaco, Inc., 764 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1985). In fact,
23
as noted by the Court in its prior Order, Defendant’s argument that “Just Right
24
1
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff submitted the deposition testimony of the following Just Right
employees in support of its Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 107: K.
Benjamin Justesen Depo., March 11, 2013, ECF No. 108-1 at Ex. 1; Blaine
Justesen Depo., Feb. 27, 2013, ECF No. 108-2 at Ex. 2; Timothy L. Martin Depo.,
Feb. 26, 2013, ECF No. 108-3 at Ex. 3.
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 9
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
never determines a temperature, or identifies organisms to target with heat,” was
2
initially raised in this case by February 21, 2012. See ECF No. 98 at 7; see also
3
Def.’s Memo. ISO Def.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 16 at 12. Thus, the
4
Court is satisfied that Plaintiff’s “failure to file documents in an original motion or
5
opposition [did] not turn the late filed documents [in the instant case] into ‘newly
6
discovered evidence.’” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (internal citation
7
omitted).
8
9
In the alternative, Plaintiff’s argument that a triable issue of fact remains as
to whether Just Right targets mold with heat, does not provide a basis for
10
reconsideration. The Court’s prior Order provided that “viewing this evidence in
11
the light most favorable to Plaintiff, ‘there is no evidence that creates a question of
12
fact as to the correlation between [a predetermined] temperature and a targeted
13
organism.’” ECF No. 98 at 13. Moreover, the Court agreed with Judge Settle that
14
merely because Plaintiff targeted organisms, the evidence remains insufficient to
15
create a question of fact as to whether Just Right “predetermined the temperature
16
of the gas to kill that particular organism because, at most, it shows that
17
[Defendant] only treated structures that contained particular organisms.” Id. at 8-9.
18
Again, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, even if a
19
reasonable juror concluded that Just Right identified and targeted mold with heat,
20
Plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient evidence to conclude that Defendant
21
predetermines a temperature, as that term has been construed by the Court,
22
sufficient to promptly kill the targeted organism. At this late juncture, the Court
23
declines to consider any new arguments raised for the first time in the parties’
24
responses or replies related to whether Defendant “promptly” kills mold or
25
evidence discussing purported temperatures lethal to various organisms. See Coos
26
Co. Bd. Of Co. Comm. v. Kempthrone, 531 F.3d 792, 812 n.16 (9th Cir. 2008)
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 10
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
(declining to consider a plaintiff’s last-minute arguments never been fully briefed
2
or argued before the district court).
3
Finally, the Court declines to utilize its inherent authority or power under
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to reconsider the prior Order, as the Court has already
5
determined that such evidence is not “new” for reconsideration purposes, nor can
6
the Court discern any clear error or that the initial decision was manifestly unjust.
7
See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988).
8
IV.
9
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of
Motion for Reconsideration
Defendant moves to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Reply brief filed in support
10
11
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. See ECF Nos. 131, 133. Specifically,
12
Defendant seeks to exclude: (1) the Declaration of Sean Abbott and supporting
13
exhibits, ECF No. 130, including references to the Abbott declaration contained in
14
Plaintiff’s Reply, ECF No. 128; and (2) the Declaration of Sean Kneafsey and
15
supporting exhibits, ECF No. 129, including references alleged instances of
16
misconduct on the part of Defense counsel contained in Plaintiff’s Reply, ECF No.
17
128.
18
Plaintiff responds in opposition, and asserts that the declarations challenged
19
were submitted in response to issues raised by Defendant for the first time in Just
20
Right’s Opposition to Thermapure’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 137 at
21
1. Plaintiff argues the Abbott evidence demonstrates that Defendant’s claim that it
22
does not “promptly” kill mold is not true. Plaintiff also submits such evidence to
23
rebut Defendant’s claim raised in its reply that it had “hidden” evidence of lethal
24
temperatures from the Court. Id. As to the Kneafsey declaration, Plaintiff claims
25
such evidence demonstrates that Defendant’s claim that “Plaintiff refused to take
26
depositions until the final days of discovery” is not true. Id.
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 11
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
Here, Plaintiff correctly argues that Defendant should not be permitted to
2
make allegations, raised for the first time in its response, and then seek to strike
3
Plaintiff’s evidence in reply which demonstrate the allegations are false. See
4
Bennett v. Tucker, 827 F.2d 63, 69 n.2 (7th Cir. 1987). Thus, Defendant’s Motion
5
to Strike is denied. However, this does not end the analysis. As noted supra, the
6
Plaintiff’s evidence, which the Court finds includes the Abbott Declaration, is not
7
“new” for the purposes of Rule 59(e), as it could have been presented prior to the
8
Court’s order granting partial summary judgment to Defendant. See Hopkins v.
9
Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 887 n.5 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Fay Corp. v. Bat Holdings I,
10
Inc., 651 F. Supp. 307, 309 (W.D.Wash. 1987)) (“Motions for reconsideration ...
11
are not justified on the basis of new evidence which could have been discovered
12
prior to the Court's ruling”). Consequently, such evidence does not provide a basis
13
for reconsideration.
14
15
CONCLUSION
The Court denies Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, as the
16
instant case is not exceptional: Plaintiff conducted an adequate pre-filing
17
investigation, the action was not objectively baseless, nor was there any evidence
18
of vexatious or improper litigation. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s Motion to
19
Strike, as it has no impact on Defendant’s Motion for Fees, which the Court ruled
20
in Plaintiff’s favor. Further, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for
21
Reconsideration, and finds that Plaintiff’s evidence is not new for the purposes of
22
Rule 59(e), nor does it create an issue of fact which warrants reconsideration. The
23
Court also denies Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of
24
Motion for Reconsideration, but finds that such is also not new pursuant to Rule
25
59(e) as noted above in the Court’s reconsideration analysis.
26
27
28
Finally, as there is no objection from the parties, and in the interests of
judicial economy, the Court transfers Defendant’s remaining invalidity
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 12
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
1
counterclaim to the Central District of California, where two related actions,
2
identical to the counterclaim asserted by Defendant in the instant case, are pending.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
4
1. Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
5
§ 285 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, ECF No. 103, is DENIED.
6
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 107, is DENIED.
7
3. Defendant’s Motions to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for
8
9
Reconsideration, ECF Nos. 131, 133 are DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections and Motion to Strike Portions of
10
Defendant’s Reply Brief filed in support of Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’
11
Fees and Costs, ECF No. 149, is DENIED.
12
5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 151, is GRANTED.
13
6. The District Court Executive is DIRECTED to transfer Cause No. CV-
14
11-0431-RHW, including Defendant's remaining counterclaim filed on January 4,
15
2012, pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02,
16
seeking a declaration that the ‘812 patent is invalid, to the Central District of
17
California and should be consolidated with related actions: Restoration Industry
18
Association Inc. v. ThermaPure, Inc., Cause No. CV-13-3169-NS-RZ (C.D.
19
Cal.); and ThermaPure, Inc. v. Water Out Oregon et al.,Cause No. CV-13-4052-
20
NS-RZ (C.D. Cal.).
21
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this
22
Order and forward copies to counsel, transfer the remaining claim as set forth
23
above, and close the file.
24
DATED this 15th day of November, 2013.
25
26
27
28
s/Robert H. Whaley
ROBERT H. WHALEY
Senior United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING DEF.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
DENYING PL.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, INTER ALIA * 13
q:\rhw\acivil\2011\thermapure\order deny fees & reconsideration.docx
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?