Westech Aerosol Corporation v. ITW Polymers Sealants North America Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER denying 30 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

WESTECH AEROSOL
CORPORATION,

10

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C17-5068-RBL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
11
12
13

ITW POLYMERS SEALANTS
NORTH AMERICA INC.,

DKT. #30

Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant ITW’s Motion for Reconsideration
[Dkt. #30] on the Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #28]. Plaintiff
Westech alleges ITW infringed its patent for a spray adhesive stored in a canister and applied
with a spray gun. ITW sought dismissal, arguing Westech had not pled sufficient-enough facts to
withstand Aschcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atlantic
Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). It made summary-judgment
type arguments to dispute the veracity of Westech’s claims. This Court concluded Westech had
sufficiently put ITW on notice of the claims against it and if ITW wants the Court to decide
whether ITW’s product infringes Westech’s, it should move for summary judgment with
supporting evidence. This Court denied ITW’s request for dismissal.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1

ITW asks the Court to reconsider its decision because Westech allegedly knows ITW’s

1
2

product does not infringe its product. ITW provided copies of its correspondence with Westech

3

to demonstrate Westech’s familiarity with ITW’s product’s chemical composition, and to support

4

its argument that Westech avoided pleading such specificity in its complaint to escape having its

5

theory of infringement tested at the motion-to-dismiss stage. ITW contends Westech had to plead

6

these facts.
ITW misconstrues the question before the Court on a motion to dismiss. The Court

7
8

considers whether the plaintiff has presented a cognizable legal theory supported by factual

9

allegations that raise the plaintiff’s right to relief against the defendant above a speculative level.

10

See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. It does not evaluate the merits of

11

plaintiff’s claims or question whether the plaintiff has pled everything it knows or not. ITW

12

presents a compelling argument that its product does not infringe Westech’s, but it uses a vehicle

13

that leaves this argument outside of the Court’s consideration.

14

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The Court will ordinarily deny such motions

15

absent a showing of new legal authority or facts that could not have been brought to its attention

16

earlier with reasonable diligence or a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling. See Local

17

Rule W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1). The term “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and

18

indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible

19

evidence in the record.” Black’s Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009).

20

ITW has not brought to the Court’s attention new authority or facts that support a

21

conclusion Westech failed to meet its burden under Iqbal and Twombly. That ITW can make the

22

arguments it does, demonstrates it is on notice of Westech’s claims against it. Nor has ITW

23

shown the Court committed manifest error in denying ITW’s motion for dismissal. ITW’s

24

-2

1

Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #30] is therefore DENIED. ITW should present its arguments

2

and supporting evidence in a motion for summary judgment, where the Court can examine as a

3

matter of law whether ITW’s product infringes Westech’s.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated this 20th day of July, 2017.

7

A

8

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

6

9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

-3