Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03909/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03909-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AAT BIOQUEST, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS FLUORESCENCE 

LABORATORIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03909-DMR 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION; 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE;

AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 90, 92, 93

On November 30, 2015, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 

following a bench trial in this patent case. [Docket No. 88.] On December 10, 2015, Defendant 

TEFLABS filed a motion for reconsideration with several attachments. [Docket No. 90.] Shortly 

thereafter, Plaintiff AAT moved to strike TEFLABS’s motion because TEFLABS had failed to 

first seek leave of court as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). [Docket No. 92.] TEFLABS 

quickly conceded its error, and filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 

[Docket No. 93.]

As TEFLABS admits, its initial filing was improper. The court therefore grants AAT’s 

motion to strike Docket No. 90 in its entirety.

TEFLABS argues that the court should grant reconsideration to correct a “manifest error of 

fact.” [Docket No. 93 at 1.] It urges the court to “re-examine the prior art Tsien Patent and its 

cited references with regard to affinity modification.” Id. at 2. It recites at length from a 

declaration it submitted in January 2015 in support of its arguments in the parties’ cross-motions 

for summary judgment. Id. at 5-6. In essence, TEFLABS now seeks yet another opportunity to 

rehash its invalidity argument based on the doctrine of anticipation. 

Case 4:14-cv-03909-DMR Document 95 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) requires that a party demonstrate reasonable diligence in applying 

for reconsideration, plus at least one of three things, including “a manifest failure by the Court to 

consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.” Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). The court already 

considered the facts and legal arguments now reargued by TEFLABS. It ruled upon them nearly 

nine months ago in April 2015. See Order on Motions for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 46 at 

13-18 (analyzing parties’ arguments re anticipation). TEFLABS has not demonstrated diligence, 

nor has it provided a proper basis for reconsideration of its unsuccessful anticipation argument.

TEFLABS also argues that reconsideration would demonstrate that it had a reasonably 

objective belief that Claim 1 of AAT’s patent-in-suit was anticipated and therefore invalid. This 

in turn would lead to reconsideration of the court’s finding that TEFLABS willfully infringed 

AAT’s patent. Not so. In finding that TEFLABS willfully infringed AAT’s patent, the court held:

In its defense against a finding of willfulness, TEFLABS takes a second bite at the 

proverbial apple by recapitulating the same attorney arguments about invalidity and 

unenforceability that it raised during summary judgment. This misses the point. In 

determining whether TEFLABS acted willfully, the court does not re-adjudicate the 

sufficiency of TEFLABS’s defenses but instead considers whether those defenses were 

objectively reasonable. TEFLABS’s failure to offer evidence or persuasive case law in 

support of its defenses [at summary judgment] rendered them meritless as presented. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Docket No. 89 at 19-20. TEFLABS’s current motion 

amounts to an equally pointless attempt at a “third bite” at the same arguments, based on the same 

evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies TEFLABS’s motion for leave to file a motion 

for reconsideration. As a final matter, TEFLABS’s motion includes two documents that have not 

previously been presented in this case. See Docket No. 93, Exs. 2 and 3 (U.S. Patent No. 

4,603,209 (1986) and U.S. Patent No. 4,689,432 (1987)). These are not newly discovered 

documents, and there is no basis for admitting them into the record at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03909-DMR Document 95 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2