Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TomTom, Inc. v. AOT Systems GmbH

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

April 15, 2014

TOMTOM, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
AOT SYSTEMS GMBH, et al., Defendants

For TomTom, Inc., Plaintiff: Adrienne Gail Johnson, Attison Leonard Barnes, III, Brian Himanshu Pandya, Karyn Kay Ablin, Wiley Rein LLP (DC), Washington, DC.

For Michael Adolph, Defendant: Antigone Gabriella Peyton, LEAD ATTORNEY, Clyde Elbert Findley, Cloudigy Law PLLC, McLean, VA; Derek Yoshio Sugimura, Gilbert Oshinsky LLP, Washington, DC; Timothy Marshall Belknap, William Edgar Copley, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, Washington, DC.

For Michael Adolph, Counter Claimant: Antigone Gabriella Peyton, LEAD ATTORNEY, Clyde Elbert Findley, Cloudigy Law PLLC, McLean, VA; Derek Yoshio Sugimura, Gilbert Oshinsky LLP, Washington, DC; Timothy Marshall Belknap, William Edgar Copley, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, Washington, DC.

For TomTom International, B.V., Counter Defendant: Adrienne Gail Johnson, Attison Leonard Barnes, III, Karyn Kay Ablin, Wiley Rein LLP (DC), Washington, DC.

For TomTom, Inc., Counter Defendant: Adrienne Gail Johnson, Attison Leonard Barnes, III, Brian Himanshu Pandya, Karyn Kay Ablin, Wiley Rein LLP (DC), Washington, DC.

For Michael Adolph, ThirdParty Plaintiff: Antigone Gabriella Peyton, LEAD ATTORNEY, Clyde Elbert Findley, Cloudigy Law PLLC, McLean, VA; Derek Yoshio Sugimura, Gilbert Oshinsky LLP, Washington, DC; Timothy Marshall Belknap, William Edgar Copley, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, Washington, DC.

For TomTom North America, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant: Adrienne Gail Johnson, Karyn Kay Ablin, Wiley Rein LLP (DC), Washington, DC.

OPINION

Page 546

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T. S. Ellis, III, United States District Judge.

On February 25, 2014, a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued in this patent infringement case construing nine disputed claim terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,356,836 (" the '836 patent" ). TomTom, Inc. v. AOT Systems GmbH, et al., 2014 WL 792031 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2014) (Memorandum Opinion). Defendant Michael Adolph (" Dr. Adolph" ) now seeks reconsideration of the portion of the Memorandum Opinion and Order construing two particular disputed claim terms and phrases: (1) " node" and (2) " destination tracking system of at least one mobile unit." For the following reasons, Dr. Adolph's motion for reconsideration must be denied.

I.

Dr. Adolph moves for reconsideration under Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., which governs reconsideration of interlocutory motions. Under this rule, a district court " retains the power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders... at any time prior to final judgment." Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514-15 (4th Cir. 2003). The resolution of motions to reconsider pursuant to Rule 54(b) is " committed to the discretion of the district court," which may be exercised " as justice requires." Id. at 515. The Fourth Circuit has made clear that the standards governing reconsideration of final judgments are not determinative of a Rule 54(b) motion,[1] but some courts have appropriately considered those factors in guiding the exercise of their discretion under Rule 54(b).[2] Thus, these courts generally do not depart from a previous ruling unless " (1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice." Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at 515 (quoting Sejman v. Warner-Lambert Co., Inc., 845 F.2d 66, 69 (4th Cir. 1988)). Such problems " rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare." Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). Motions to reconsider asking a court to " rethink what the Court had already thought through--rightly or wrongly" should not be granted. Id.

Here, Dr. Adolph has failed to identify any change in the applicable law or pertinent facts since entry of the Memorandum Opinion and Order construing the nine disputed claim terms. Put simply, Dr. Adolph disagrees with the current claim construction and asks for reconsideration of two terms based on new arguments that Dr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.