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)

Download PDF
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

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?