United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO STRIKE
J. GARBIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court has before it Defendant Lifeworks' Motion for
Reconsideration and/or to Preclude Plaintiff from Pursuing
Claims of Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents [ECF
No. 105] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The
Court has considered the materials and finds that a hearing
stated by Judge Ramsey in Weyerhaeuser Corp. v.
Koppers Co., Inc.:
A motion for reconsideration (or, to alter or amend judgment)
made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) may be made for one of
three reasons: (1) an intervening change in the controlling
law has occurred, (2) evidence not previously available has
become available, or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991); see also Pac. Ins.
Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th
Cir. 1998). Such a motion “cannot be used to raise
arguments which could, and should, have been made before [the
determination on which reconsideration is sought was]
issued.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781
F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986).
“[t]he power to reconsider or modify interlocutory
rulings ‘is committed to the discretion of the district
court, ' and that discretion is not cabined by the
‘heightened standards for reconsideration'
governing final orders.” Saint Annes Dev. Co. v.
Trabich, 443 F.App'x 829, 832 (4th Cir.
2011)(quoting American Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms,
Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514-15 (4th Cir. 2003)). This does
not mean that the court must disregard the standards
applicable to motions to reconsider under Rules 59(e) and 60(b),
but rather it is “left within the plenary power of the
Court that rendered them to afford such relief from them as
justice requires.” Id. (quoting
Fayetteville Inv'rs v. Commercial Builders,
Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1473 (4th Cir. 1991)).
incorporating by reference its prior motions papers, repeats
the same arguments made in support of its original motion. A
motion that simply repeats contentions that have already been
rejected are not sufficient to convince the Court to
reconsider and are rejected for the reasons stated in the
challenged order. Lifeworks requests, in the alternative,
that the Court preclude plaintiff, M-Edge International
Corporation (“M-Edge”), from pursuing claims of
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents pursuant to
Rules 16(f) [Sanctions], 26(e)[Duty to Supplement
Disclosures], and 37(b)[Sanctions].
argues that M-Edge failed to properly allege “doctrine
of equivalent” (“DOE”) contentions with
regard to claims 1, 2, and 6, and also failed to supplement
or amend those contentions. Lifeworks also appears to seek
sanctions on the basis that M-Edge violated the Court's
scheduling order by not providing sufficient DOE detail in
its infringement contentions charts.
M-Edge included DOE allegations in its Complaint and Amended
Complaint. See Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 1, Am.
Compl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 76. Second, in its Initial
Disclosure of Infringement Contentions, and in the
corresponding Claim Charts, M-Edge asserts DOE contentions.
See ECF Nos. 19, 22. Further, at the claim
construction hearing, DOE was discussed, although M-Edge
confirmed that discussions between it and Lifeworks had only
been top-level up to that point. Hr'g Tr. 108:8-15.
Certainly, Lifeworks has been on notice since day one that
M-Edge would be pursuing DOE contentions and has discussed
the theory with M-Edge.
cites to a number of Federal Circuit cases that support the
exclusion of evidence as an appropriate sanction for the
failure to comply with local patent rules or court orders.
The Court notes that of the cited cases, all but
were in the context of a motion in limine or motion
for summary judgment. See, e.g., O2 Micro
Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., 467 F.3d 1355,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(upholding a district court's grant
of summary judgment where plaintiff failed to timely provide
evidence supporting its theory of infringement); Woods v.
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272, 1277 (Fed.
Cir. 2012)(granting the motion to strike lodged at the
beginning of the defense case at trial); Howmedica
Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 822 F.3d 1312, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2016)(finding that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in preventing the assertion of DOE when
it was first contended at the summary judgment stage);
SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278,
1292 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(finding that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in its summary judgment ruling).
1. Defendant Lifeworks' Motion for Reconsideration and/or
to Preclude Plaintiff from Pursuing Claims of Infringement
Under the Doctrine of Equivalents [ECF No. 105] is DENIED.
action does not restrict Defendant from presenting whatever
contentions may be appropriate in regard to any motion for
summary judgment or motion in limine.
deadlines for completion of expert discovery and filing of
motions for summary judgment remain as stated in the