Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04232/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04232-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark 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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-4232 JF (HRL) 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 8/30/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PHASE FORWARD INCORPORATED, a

Delaware Corporation

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MARY NOEL ADAMS, individually and d/b/a

PHASE FORWARD,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-4232 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 1

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order of July 24, 2007 (“Order”) denying

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Count VIII of Plaintiff’s Complaint. In relevant

part, the Order denied Defendant’s motion to affirm a decision of the Trademark Trial and

Appeals Board (“TTAB”). Defendant’s request for reconsideration is procedurally deficient

because Defendant did not first seek leave to file the request as required by Local Rule 7-9(a). 

Setting aside Defendant’s procedural error, this Court will deny the request because Defendant

Case 5:05-cv-04232-JF Document 71 Filed 08/30/07 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 2

Case No. C 05-4232 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

(JFLC3)

has not identified a cognizable basis for reconsideration. See Local Rule 7-9(b)(2). 

When, as in the instant case, new evidence is introduced after a ruling by the TTAB, the

Court’s review of the TTAB’s ruling is de novo, with deference given to the TTAB’s findings. 

See Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal Int’l, Inc., No. 2-05-CV-1468-GEB-JFM, slip op., 2007 WL 609864, at

*5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2007) citing CAE, Inc. v. Clean Air Eng’g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 674 (7

th

Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff has introduced new evidence, including evidence of confusion, new

deposition testimony, and client lists. If “divergent ultimate inferences may reasonably be

drawn” from the new evidence and the inferences bear on the TTAB’s decision, summary

judgment is improper. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 609864 at *5, citing Miller v. Glen Miller Prods.,

Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 988 (9 Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied. th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 30, 2007 __________________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04232-JF Document 71 Filed 08/30/07 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

Case No. C 05-4232 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

(JFLC3)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Randy Scott Erlewine rse@phillaw.com 

David Given dmg@phillaw.com, 

Keith Lee leeke@pepperlaw.com, sanfordl@pepperlaw.com 

Spencer Martinez scm@phillaw.com, 

Laura Thompson LThompsonesq@comcast.net 

M. Kelly Tillery tilleryk@pepperlaw.com, carrollp@pepperlaw.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Nathan W. Dean 

Pepper Hamilton LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

Eighteenth & Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Matthew Stavish 

6550 Rock Spring Drive

Suite 240

Bethesda, MA 20817

Case 5:05-cv-04232-JF Document 71 Filed 08/30/07 Page 3 of 3