Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00894/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00894-10/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 - 07cv0894

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL

GMBH and CARL ZEISS VISION INC.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv0894 DMS (POR)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 664]

vs.

SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC.,

Defendant. ____________________________________

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s

March 1, 2010 Order striking Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on counterclaims IV, V and

VII. Defendant filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. The motion came on for

hearing on April 16, 2010. Eric Weisblatt appeared and argued for Plaintiff, and Richard Schnurr

appeared and argued for Defendant. 

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiff argues the Court should grant the present

motion because the original order will result in manifest injustice. However, the Court disagrees.

Case 3:07-cv-00894-DMS-DHB Document 727 Filed 04/21/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 07cv0894

Defendant requested that the Court strike Plaintiff’s motion in its opposition brief, and the Court did

so based on the conduct described in the Magistrate Judge’s January 21, 2010 Report and

Recommendation. Under these circumstances, it was not manifestly unjust for the Court to strike

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 21, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00894-DMS-DHB Document 727 Filed 04/21/10 Page 2 of 2