Avocent Redmond Corp v. Rose Electric Inc et al

Filing 851

ORDER regarding Belkin's 850 Motion for Reconsideration; clerk directed to renote motion to 12/21/12 by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2012: # 1 corrected image) (RS).

Case 2:06-cv-01711-RSL Document 852 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
_______________________________________
)
AVOCENT REDMOND CORP.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
ROSE ELECTRONICS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C06-1711RSL
ORDER REGARDING BELKIN’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

13

This matter comes before the Court on “Belkin, Inc. and Belkin International,
14

Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration Concerning Patent Marking.” Dkt. # 850. Such motions are
15

disfavored in this district and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior
16

ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s]
17

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1).
18

Belkin argues that the Court erred by finding that (a) Avocent Huntsville and
19

Raritan consistently and continuously marked substantially all of the patented products and
20

(b) that plaintiff provided actual notice of the patents prior to initiation of this lawsuit. The
21

evidence of marking by Avocent Huntsville is more limited than the Court initially thought.
22

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(3), Avocent may, if it chooses, file a response regarding the
23

state of the record regarding Avocent Huntsville’s marking practices and the issue of actual
24

notice on or before December 17, 2012. Belkin’s reply, if any, shall be filed no later than
25

December 21, 2012. The Clerk of Court is directed to re-note Belkin’s “Motion for
26

Reconsideration” (Dkt. # 850) on the Court’s calendar for December 21, 2012.
ORDER REGARDING AVOCENT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Case 2:06-cv-01711-RSL Document 852 Filed 12/10/12 Page 2 of 2

1

Avocent need not respond to Belkin’s argument regarding Raritan’s marking

2

practices, however. The record shows that Avocent imposed a contractual requirement on

3

Raritan to marked its products. Belkin offers no testimony, documents, or other evidence

4

suggesting that distributed unmarked products. The mere possibility that Raritan could have

5

breached its contractual agreement does not give rise to an issue of fact for the jury. The motion

6

for reconsideration on that ground is DENIED.

7
8

Dated this 10th day of December, 2012.

A

9

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER REGARDING AVOCENT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

-2-