Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02346/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02346-13/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

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 07/28/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

AQUA-LUNG AMERICA, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AMERICAN UNDERWATER 

PRODUCTS, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 07-2346 RS (HRL) 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

LEAVE TO SEEK 

RECONSIDERATION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 On April 28, 2010, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the 

parties’ respective cross-motions for summary judgment on various issues in this patent 

infringement action. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(d), plaintiff Aqua-Lung America, Inc. 

thereafter sought leave to file two motions for reconsideration addressing certain aspects of that 

order. The Court then issued an order that did not decide whether leave to seek reconsideration 

should be granted, but directing defendants to respond to Aqua-Lung’s motions seeking leave. 

Defendants filed a consolidated opposition addressing both the question of whether the prerequisites 

for reconsideration had been satisfied, and arguing that on the merits no different result is warranted. 

 With respect to one of the motions for leave to seek reconsideration, Aqua-Lung has failed 

to show that any basis for reconsideration exists. With respect to the other, Aqua-Lung is correct 

Case 5:07-cv-02346-RS Document 140 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

that the Court’s order did not expressly address one argument it made in support of its underlying 

motion, but it fails to establish that the argument would have been dispositive. Accordingly, the 

motions for leave to seek reconsideration will be denied. 

II. DISCUSSION1

A. Reconsideration of order denying summary judgment on trade secret misappropriation claim

 Aqua-Lung first challenges that portion of the April 28, 2010 order that denied summary 

judgment on defendants’ counterclaim for trade secret misappropriation. Its argument is primarily 

based on the contention that the Court erred in relying on evidence from Dr. Forrest McDuff 

suggesting that Aqua-Lung may have gained a six-month “head start” in bringing to market 

products incorporating the allegedly misappropriated technology. Aqua-Lung argues that Dr. 

McDuff was an economic expert with an inadequate basis for so opining. The misappropriation 

claim may indeed rest on a particularly thin reed, but given the evidence that Aqua-Lung was in 

possession of the alleged trade secrets and that it was able to bring its devices to market in advance 

of defendants, sufficient inferences arise to support the existence of triable issues of fact. The Court 

has not ruled that the trade secret claim will succeed, only that it does not fail as a matter of law on 

undisputed facts. 

Moreover, by challenging the evidentiary value of Dr. McDuff’s opinion, Aqua-Lung is 

arguing only that the Court’s decision was incorrect. Reconsideration does not lie to permit a party 

merely to reargue points it lost. Rather, a party must show “a material difference in fact or law,” 

“emergence of new material facts or a change of law,” or a “manifest failure by the Court to 

consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.” Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1)-(3). AquaLung’s challenge does not meet any of these criteria. 

Aqua-Lung does suggest that it presented other arguments that the Court did not adequately 

take into account in reaching its decision. The April 28, 2010 order, however, expressly held that 

defendants had “also made a preliminary showing of fact as to the other elements of trade secret 

 

1

 The factual background of this action is set out in the April 28, 2010 order, and will not be 

repeated here. 

Case 5:07-cv-02346-RS Document 140 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 4
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

misappropriation.” April 28, 2010 order at 20:25-26. As such, Aqua-Lung’s complaint is not that 

the Court failed to consider dispositive legal arguments, but that it did not discuss all of them in the 

detail that Aqua-Lung would have preferred. That too is not a basis for reconsideration. 

Accordingly, leave to seek reconsideration with respect to the trade secret claim is denied. 

B. Reconsideration of order denying summary judgment on invalidity of ’674 patent

 Aqua-Lung next acknowledges that the Court considered and rejected one of the two 

grounds on which it argued for invalidity of the ’674 patent. While Aqua-Lung does not agree with 

that analysis, it does not seek reconsideration on that point. Aqua-Lung instead contends that the 

Court failed to consider and address its further argument that the patent is invalid because the 

specification describes only valves located within the fluid passageway, whereas the claims have 

been construed to reach valves that are within a “bore,” but not necessarily within a passageway 

through which fluid flows. This contention arguably satisfies the prerequisite for reconsideration 

that the prior order failed to consider an argument that had been presented, but Aqua-Lung has 

failed to show that the argument would have been dispositive. 

 In connection with Aqua-Lung’s other argument that the specification of the original ’130 

application did not disclose or teach valves operated by anything other than fluid pressure (e.g., 

there was no reference to, or drawings of valves operated by mechanical pressure). While the April 

28, 2010 order stopped short of definitively finding that the result would be invalidity if only the 

original application were considered, it did rely on the new matter in the continuation in part 

application as the basis for denying the invalidity motion.2

 In that instance, however, the disparity 

 

2

 In a footnote, Aqua-Lung argues that the April 28, 2010 order erroneously evaluated the validity 

of the ’609 and ’958 patents in light of the specifications as issued, rather than by looking to the 

original ’130 specification to which defendants claimed priority. To the extent Aqua-Lung is 

suggesting that it was error to look to the specifications of the issued patents as opposed to those in 

either the original application or the continuation-in-part application, the Court did not intend to 

distinguish between the patent specification and the specification in the continuation application, as 

it is not aware of any material differences between them. To the extent Aqua-Lung is only 

complaining that the Court considered new matter added in the continuation application rather than 

looking solely to the ’130 application, it has not offered any authority that a court is required to find 

a patent invalid solely as the result of a patentee having made a failed attempt to argue for a priority 

date based on an original application. Rather, it appears most common that courts will find 

invalidity after first rejecting a priority date argument and then also finding intervening prior art that 

Case 5:07-cv-02346-RS Document 140 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 4
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

between claims for mechanically-operated valves and the original specification which described no 

such valves was manifest. No similar conflict is apparent between the fact that the claims reach 

valves disposed within the broader term “bore” and the fact that the specification does not happen to 

show any embodiments where valves are not within a fluid passageway. To be sure, valves that are 

operated by fluid pressure must, perforce, be located in a fluid passageway. Once the new matter in 

the continuation application described valves operated by mechanical pressure, though, no physical 

reason remained that would require the valves to be within a fluid passageway. Aqua-Lung has 

failed to present sufficient persuasive analysis or authority to compel a conclusion as a matter of law 

that the specification is insufficient merely because it did not more explicitly describe or provide an 

example of a valve within a bore, but not in the direct path of the fluid flow. Accordingly, the 

motion for leave to seek reconsideration as to the denial of Aqua-Lung’s invalidity motion is denied. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 The motions for leave to seek reconsideration are denied. 

Dated: 07/28/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

results in invalidity, given the later applicable priority date. See, Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc. 156 F.3d 

1154, 1158-60 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“these claims are not entitled to the filing date of the parent 

application and are invalid as anticipated by the intervening prior art.”) (emphasis added). That 

said, Aqua-Lung made some valid points in its reply brief in the underlying motion that under the 

disclosure obligations of our Local Patent Rules, there could be unfairness and prejudice in allowing 

a patentee to proceed under a different priority date than it initially contended applied. 

Nevertheless, because Aqua-Lung prevailed on its non-infringement arguments with respect to these 

patents, it is not now contending it was actually prejudiced in this instance. 

Case 5:07-cv-02346-RS Document 140 Filed 07/28/10 Page 4 of 4