A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware

Entries for tag: LR 7.1.5

Pepi Stojanovski, Unsplash

As we've recognized before, motions for reconsideration can be tough.

First, the deadline to move for reargument or reconsideration is fairly easy to miss. It's just 14 days after the order or opinion, and there are no CMECF reminders to flag it for counsel.

Second, the standard for reconsideration is fairly narrow. As we've discussed, you can't rehash arguments you already made—but you also can't make new arguments you could have raised earlier.

What does that leave? New arguments that you couldn't have raised earlier. And those typically result from something unanticipated in the Court's ruling or order.

This week we had a good example of a worthwhile motion for reconsideration. In …

Piper Saratoga Plane
Alan Lebeda, CC BY 2.0

Last week, Judge Andrews granted a motion for reargument in a products liability diversity action, permitting further argument on summary judgment after the Court had previously ended the case by finding against plaintiff at summary judgment.

In its original opinion, nearly a year ago, the Court found that a federal statute that limits products liability for aircraft parts manufacturers blocked recovery here, and entered a judgment for defendant on all claims.

Plaintiff's motion for reargument asserted that, in addition to bringing actions against defendant as a "manufacturer," it had asserted claims based on the defendant's role as a "rebuilder and seller" of airline parts, and then detailed an argument based on the statutory language, …

Light Bulb
Alessandro Bianchi, Unsplash

While motions for reconsideration are frequently filed, they are not frequently granted. Typically they are shut down pretty easily. The rules put the moving party in a box, because parties can neither repeat arguments from their brief nor offer new arguments.

These motions are sometimes granted, though, and Judge Connolly granted one such motion late last month. I thought it would be interesting to look at what worked.

What happened?

The Court had originally granted a motion to exclude expert testimony from a defendant's infringement expert, on the grounds that the expert had testified that the presence of additional structure in a means-plus-function claim results in non-infringement.

We discussed this opinion at the time, pointing out that violating a well-established rule like that one is a great way to get an expert opinion excluded. ...