Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01488/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01488-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 While Bandwagon’s Second Motion is, in fact, styled as a “Motion to Alter and/or 1

Amend the Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Dated August 19,

2011,” it is described on the Docket as a “Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration re

Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.” Bandwagon’s Second Motion, however, is not

“supplemental” to the First Motion, as the Second Motion does not supply something

additional to the First Motion but instead seeks alteration of this Court’s August 19,

05CV1488 JAH (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIVIX GOLF INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY P. MOHR et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05CV1488 JAH (CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

ALTER AND/OR AMEND

FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

ORDER DATED AUGUST 19, 2011

[DKT. NO. 304]

The background of this litigation is contained in the Court’s first trial order, (Dkt.

No. 226). On September 16, 2011, defendants Jeffrey P. Mohr; Remedy Golf, Inc.; and

Bandwagon, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed a “Motion to Alter and/or Amend the Court’s

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Dated August 19, 2011” (“First

Motion”). (Dkt. No. 294.) Defendants asked this Court to alter its Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law and Order, (Dkt. No. 291), with respect to Finding of Fact No. 14.

On October 26, 2011, this Court denied the First Motion. (Dkt. No. 303).

On October 27, 2011, defendant Bandwagon, Inc. (“Bandwagon”) filed another

“Motion to Alter and/or Amend the Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and

Order Dated August 19, 2011” (“Second Motion”). (Dkt. No. 294. ) Bandwagon asks 1

Case 3:05-cv-01488-JAH-KSC Document 308 Filed 01/24/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2011, trial order on an entirely different basis than in the First Motion.

2 05CV1488 JAH (CAB)

this Court “to amend the judgment issued against it to reflect only its own culpability,

actions, and profitability, by assessing damages against Bandwagon at the typical six

percent royalty rate for only those 70,000 units Bandwagon imported,” or, “[i]n the

alternative, . . . to limit the amount for which Bandwagon is jointly and severally liable to

$77,982.40.” The Second Motion has been fully briefed, (Dkt. Nos. 305, 306), and this

Court took it under submission without oral argument on December 9, 2011, (Dkt. No.

307).

Defendants seek reconsideration of this Court’s second trial order, (Dkt. No. 291),

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which provides that “[a] motion to

alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of

judgment.” Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration is appropriate if (1) there is newly

discovered evidence requiring amendment or vacation of the judgment; (2) the district

court committed clear error or its initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has

been an intervening change in the controlling law. See Zimmerman v. Oakland, 255 F.3d

734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted, absent

highly unusual circumstances.” Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001)

(quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)).

Bandwagon’s Second Motion is not based on the discovery of new evidence or on

an intervening change in the controlling law. Thus, if the Second Motion is to be granted,

it must be because the Court committed clear error.

The Court finds no clear error with respect to its findings and conclusions as to

Bandwagon’s liability. “[W]hoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells

any patented invention . . . during the term of the patent, therefor, infringes the patent.”

35 U.S.C. § 271. “[P]arties that make and sell an infringing device are joint tort-feasors

with parties that purchase an infringing device for use or resale.” Shockley v. Arcan, Inc.,

248 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Each joint tort-feasor is liable for the full amount of

damages (up to a full single recovery) suffered by the patentee.” Id. (citations omitted)

Case 3:05-cv-01488-JAH-KSC Document 308 Filed 01/24/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 05CV1488 JAH (CAB)

(emphasis added). With regard to damages, the court is required to “award the claimant

damages adequate to compensate for the infringement.” 35 U.S.C. § 284.

The Court found that “Bandwagon was the middleman between Remedy and the

Chinese manufacturers of the switchblade divot repair tools.” (Dkt. No. 291 at 19.) The

Court also found that “Instead of using new molds, Bandwagon modified the molds it

made for Divix’ switchblade divot repair tools to make Remedy’s switchblade divot repair

tools.” (Id. at 20.) And, as Bandwagon correctly notes, this Court found it imported

70,000 infringing tools. (Id.) 

Based on the above findings of fact, and in addition to other findings of fact

contained in the August 19, 2011, trial order, the Court found Bandwagon to be a joint

tortfeasor and, as such, jointly and severally liable for the amount awarded to Plaintiff as

compensation for the infringement, including what this Court concluded was a reasonable

royalty rate of 20%. This conclusion is grounded in currently applicable law as set forth

above. 

Bandwagon has cited no authority for the proposition that an individual joint

tortfeasor’s conduct is binding with respect to determining that joint tortfeasor’s ultimate

responsibility for the compensatory damages awarded to a patentee. Thus, while

Bandwagon may have played a different role in the infringement than did the remaining

defendants, it remains jointly and severally liable for the damages required to compensate

Plaintiff. In sum, Bandwagon has failed to demonstrate that this Court committed clear

error with respect to its liability. Accordingly, Bandwagon’s Second Motion is DENIED.

Dated: January 20, 2012

 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01488-JAH-KSC Document 308 Filed 01/24/12 Page 3 of 3