FYI - 3 things - new symbol, email from oppedahl, text of opinion
1) GIFT is now trading under the symbol EDTA
2) EMAIL from Defs. attorney:
"On November 30, 1998, Judge Jones issued a Memorandum Order denying
E-Data's motion for reconsideration.
What will happen next? One possibility, now that the claim scope has been
determined by the Court, would be for the case to
proceed on the infringement issue, namely an inquiry regarding each
defendant as to whether it infringes the claims. But a more
likely possibility is that each of the defendants may move for summary
judgment, asking the Court to judge that they are not
infringers given the claim scope. Alternatively the plaintiff might
stipulate to such a judgment. The plaintiff has indicated that it
hopes to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the
issue of whether the District Court correctly determined
the claim scope.
The Memorandum Order may be seen at patents.com ."
3) Text of memorandum (copied from oppedahl website)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
INTERACTIVE GIFT EXPRESS, INC.,:
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : 95 Civ. 6871 (BSJ)
:
COMPUSERVE INC., et al., : MEMORANDUM ORDER
:
Defendants. :
--------------------------------------------------------------X
BARBARA S. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 15, 1998, the Court issued a 41-page Opinion and Order ("Opinion"), familiarity with which is assumed,
construing the claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,528,643. Plaintiff, now known as E-Data and now represented by
different counsel, now moves for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.3, contending that the Court (1)
overlooked certain language appearing in the patent that firmly supports plaintiff's claim construction,(1) and (2)
overlooked or did not properly apply controlling principles of claim construction. Alternatively, plaintiff requests
the Court to afford it a Markman hearing on the issues presented in its motion for reconsideration.
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration or reargument under Local Civil Rule 6.3 rests with the
sound discretion of the district court. See Mullen v. Bevona, No. 95 Civ. 5838, 1998 WL 148426, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 27, 1998). Under Rule 6.3, a party seeking reconsideration or reargument "must demonstrate that the court
overlooked controlling authority or factual matters that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion
reached by the court." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Parties may not advance any new
facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the court." Id. "Rule 6.3 is to be applied strictly in order to
dissuade repetitive arguments on issues that have already been considered fully by the court." Id. (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, a party moving pursuant to Rule 6.3 "may properly point
out only controlling factual or legal matters which it had previously raised in the underlying motion, but which
were not considered by the Court." Bonnie & Co. Fashions, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co., 170 F.R.D. 111, 113-14
(S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Here, plaintiff has failed to satisfy the standard for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 6.3. First, the Court fully
considered and rejected plaintiff's contentions that a consumer's home can constitute "a point of sale location,"
and that the patent claims cover the real-time delivery of information. Second, plaintiff has not demonstrated, as it
is required to do pursuant to Rule 6.3, that it previously raised principles of claim construction that were
overlooked by the Court. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 6.3 is denied.(2)
Plaintiff's request for a Markman hearing is also denied. The Court previously indicated in its Opinion that no
Markman hearing was needed in this case and it continues to remain of this view.
SO ORDERED:
BARBARA S. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE |
