Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971-27/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CALPHALON CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-05-0971 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., 

Defendant.

 

MEYER CORPORATION, U.S. and

MEYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES

LIMITED,

Counterclaimants,

v.

CALPHALON CORPORATION,

Counterdefendant.

----oo0oo----

On June 15, 2007, this court entered judgment in favor

of defendant Meyer Corporation, U.S. (“Meyer”) on a jury verdict

of non-infringement. Plaintiff Calphalon Corporation

(“Calphalon”) now seeks to vacate and set aside that judgment and

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 259 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

requests a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(a) and Local Rule 59-291.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b) requires that all 

motions filed with the court detail with sufficient

“particularity the grounds therefor.” The specificity

requirement of Rule 7(b) has generally been interpreted

liberally. See Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 613 (6th

Cir. 2005); see also Roy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft,

781 F.2d 670, 670-71 (9th Cir. 1985). However, at a minimum, it

must be applied so as to provide the opposing party with

sufficient information to respond, and the court with sufficient

information to rule on the motion. Registration Control Sys.,

Inc. v. Compusystems, Inc., 922 F.2d 805, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 

It is for this reason that this court’s Local Rule requires that

motions for a new trial “state with specific reference to

relevant portions of any existing record and to any supporting

affidavits: (1) the particular errors of law claimed, (2) if a

ground is insufficiency of evidence, the particulars thereof . .

. .” L. R. 59-291 (emphasis added). 

Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial asserts that: 1) the

court committed prejudicial error by making incorrect evidentiary

rulings; 2) the court committed prejudicial error by allowing

defendant to make improper legal arguments; 3) the court

committed prejudicial error by offering legally incorrect jury

instructions; and 4) the jury’s verdict was contrary to the

weight of the evidence. (Mot. for New Trial 2-17.) Within those

particular arguments, plaintiff raises numerous specific examples

of each; i.e. plaintiff offers five purportedly incorrect

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 259 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 4
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

evidentiary rulings, five lines of argumentation that the court

should have prohibited, and four specific jury instructions that

were supposedly improper. (Id.) While plaintiff has thus made

clear the “particular errors of law claimed,” plaintiff’s

seventeen page motion does not contain a single citation to any

part of the record of the eight-day trial.

At this point, it is not possible for the court to

connect the errors asserted by plaintiff with the corresponding

actions and rulings of the court. However, the court is aware

that plaintiff has requested from the court reporter a copy of

the trial transcript, but as of yet has not been provided with

one. Accordingly, the court will permit plaintiff to file an

amended motion for a new trial, after having a reasonable amount

of time to obtain the trial transcript and supplement its motion

appropriately. See Roy, 781 F.2d at 670-71 (noting that it is

permissible for a district court to allow a party to supplement a

timely filed motion for a new trial in order to provide

“sufficient particularity”) (citing Pogue v. Int’l Indus., Inc.,

524 F.2d 342 (6th Cir.1975); 6A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶

59.09(2) at 59-204-209); see also Allied Chemical Corp. v.

Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980) (noting that the authority

to grant or deny a new trial is confided “almost entirely to the

exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court”).

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 259 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Calphalon is hereby given

ninety days from the date of service of this order to notice,

file and serve an amended motion for a new trial consistent with

the requirements set forth herein.

DATED: August 2, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 259 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 4