United States District Court, S.D. New York
September 15, 2005.
RESQNET.COM, INC., Plaintiff,
LANSA, INC., Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT SWEET, Senior District Judge
Both the plaintiff ResQNet.com, Inc. ("ResQNet") and defendant
Lansa, Inc. ("Lansa") have moved pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 for
reconsideration of the opinion of this Court entered January 26,
2005 (the "January 26 Opinion"). For the reasons set forth below,
both motions are denied.
The procedural history of this patent infringement action was
set forth in the January 26 Opinion, familiarity with which is
assumed. The January 26 Opinion concluded that ResQNet had
violated Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P., a conclusion that ResQNet now
seeks to have reconsidered. The January 26 Opinion also denied
Lansa's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the
`608 and `075 patents and noted the failure of Lansa to provide
certain of its exhibits as part of the court record. Lansa seeks
now to submit the exhibits and reconsideration of its motion for
Various motions have been submitted in connection with surreply
submissions and will be denied in view of the conclusions reached
below. The motions for reconsideration were considered fully
submitted on March 9, 2005. The ResQNet Motion Is Denied
Local Civil Rule 6.3 for the Southern District of New York
provides that parties may file motions for reconsideration of the
court's decisions, accompanied by a memorandum that sets forth
"the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the
court has overlooked." To be entitled to reconsideration, the
movant must demonstrate that the court overlooked controlling
decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the
underlying motion. See Ameritrust Co. Nat'l Ass'n v. Dew,
151 F.R.D. 237, 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); East Coast Novelty Co. v. City
of New York, 141 F.R.D. 245, 245 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
It is well established that a motion for reconsideration is not
the proper avenue for the submission of new material. See Local
Rule 6.3; First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse LLP, No.
M8-85 (RWS), 1999 WL 148460 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 1999). In a motion
for reconsideration, a party may not "advance new facts, issues
or arguments not previously presented to the Court."
Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.,
768 F. Supp. 115, 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). See Kara Holding Corp. v.
Getty Petroleum Mktg., Inc., No. 99 CV. 0275 (RWS), 2005 WL
53266, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2005) (citing In re Houbigant,
Inc., 914 F. Supp. 997, 1001 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)). Indeed, new
material should be stricken and disregarded. See Quartararo v.
Catterson, 73 F. Supp. 2d 270, 273 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). Furthermore, Local Civil Rule 6.3 is "narrowly construed and
strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues
that have been considered fully by the Court." Davidson v.
Scully, 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The policy
underlying these principles is to ensure finality and to prevent
losing parties from raising matters that already have been
rejected. See Range Road Music, Inc. v. Music Sales Corp.,
90 F. Supp. 2d 390, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
ResQNet bases its motion for partial reconsideration in order
to provide "further explanation" of the letter which was the
basis of the action giving rise to the sanction. In connection
with the motion giving rise to the January 26 Opinion, complete
copies of the 2001 letters between counsel for ResQNet and
counsel for Lansa were provided. The Court, therefore, did not
overlook the September 2001 letter.
Now with a ruling against it, ResQNet has stated that its
motion for partial reconsideration is to provide "further
explanation" regarding its admissions of non-infringement. (See
Pl. Memorandum of Law, Jan. 27, 2005, n. 1.) Such "further
explanation" of the letter presenting a new or expanded argument
does not warrant reconsideration. See Local Rule 6.3;
Morse/Diesel, 768 F. Supp. at 116. In addition, ResQNet presents on its motion for reconsideration
a claim chart to attempt to show that it had some basis for
asserting infringement of the '127 and '608 patents. The claim
chart, attached as exhibit A to ResQNet's Memorandum in Support
of its Motion for Partial Reconsideration, is new material for
ResQNet's reargument and should not be considered. See
Quartararo, 73 F. Supp. 2d at 273.*fn1 ResQNet's motion
for partial reconsideration is denied.
The Lansa Motion Is Denied
Basically, Lansa seeks not reconsideration but reargument of
its summary judgment motion on the grounds that the missing
exhibits, which were not overlooked but rather not provided, have
now been supplied. No authority is submitted to support such
relief under Local Rule 6.3 and the authorities cited above.
Even if reargument rather than reconsideration would be
appropriate, which it is not, the reargument would be unavailing.
A factual dispute remains between the experts and the parties as
to whether or not the Lansa process employs an algorithm to
generate a screen ID. Whether the issue is definitional or a matter of process, there
can be no question but that it remains an issue for the trier of
fact. Footnote 4 of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition
has captured the dispute:
Lansa urges that the screen ID is the input to the
recognition algorithm in the Lansa system rather than
the output as in the patent. As Dr. Dowling
thoroughly explained, this terminology difference
created some confusion. Dr. Dowling further explained
that the screen recognition algorithm executed by the
Lansa system, after scanning the downloaded screen,
results in a number that depends upon the cited field
attributes. (See, e.g., excerpts above). The '075
patent in suit also states that a number associated
with the screen must be stored in advance of
execution of the recognition algorithm (Ex. B. to
Savitt Affidavit of August 20, 2004, '075 patent,
Col. 3, describing that the screen Tags and Ids are
stored prior to the system identifying the downloaded
screens). Thus, both the patent in issue and the
Lansa system store information in advance, examine
the downloaded screen to generate a number, and
compare that generated number to the prestored
information to determine if there is a match. Lansa
may not escape the patent claim merely by calling its
prestored number the screen ID, rather than the
number later generated by its screen recognition
(Pl. Memorandum of Law, March 1, 2005, n. 4)
Summary judgment remains inappropriate under these
circumstances and its denial in the January 26 Opinion will not
be reconsidered. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, both motions for
reconsideration are denied.
It is so ordered.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.