United States District Court, D. Idaho
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, Plaintiff,
McCAIN FOODS USA, INC., Defendant. McCAIN FOODS LIMITED, Plaintiff,
J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant McCain's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the Court's Claim Construction Order.
Dkt. 70. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court
finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further
delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional
process would not be significantly aided by oral argument,
the Court will decide the Motion without oral argument. Dist.
Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the Motion.
a Markman hearing in this case, the Court issued a
Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 69) setting forth the
construction of certain disputed terms. One of those terms
was “high electric field.” The parties'
respective positions are set forth below.
'"a high electric field"
an electric field strong enough
An electric field between 45 and 65 V/cm to make
the vegetable and/or
2. To the extent that the term
'Lhigh electric field" fruit
easier to cut is not limited as indicated by the
Examiner, it must be limited to between 3 0 and 75
short, Simplot alleged that “high electric field”
was vague and must be limited to an electric field range
between 45 and 65 V/cm-or at most 30-75 V/cm-as all relevant
evidence pointed to this range. McCain, on the other hand,
urged the Court to forgo placing numerical limitations in any
construction, but allow the definition to simply reflect the
purpose of the patent-i.e. that the electric field must
simply be strong enough to make the fruit or vegetable easier
reviewing (1) the language in the patent summary; (2) the
language from the Patent Examiner; (3) McCain's internal
documents; and (4) McCain's representations to the
European Patent Office, the Court ultimately concluded that
the evidence weighed in favor of Simplot's proposed
construction and found that a limiting definition was
appropriate. The Court construed “high electric
field” as “an electric field between 30 and 75
now asks the Court to revisit its construction of the term
high electric field.
does not state a rule upon which it bases its request for
relief but references in passing Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59. This Rule does “permit a district court
to reconsider and amend a previous order, ” but the
Ninth Circuit instructs that the Rule offers an
“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
interests of finality and conservation of judicial
resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934,
945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al.,
Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30 (3d ed. 2000)).
are four limited grounds upon which” a district court
may grant a motion for reconsideration: “(1) the motion
is necessary to correct manifest errors of fact or law; (2)
the moving party presents newly discovered evidence; (3)
reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice;
or (4) there is an intervening change in the law.”
Coffelt v. Yordy, No. 1:16-CV-00190-CWD, 2016 WL
9724059, at *1 (D. Idaho Nov. 30, 2016) (citing Turner v.
Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063
(9th Cir. 2003)).
argues that the Court erred by failing to follow Federal
Circuit precedent and the “exacting standard of
disavowal” set forth in Thorner v. Sony Computer