Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00134/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00134-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

18-CV-134-JLS (KSC)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARBMETRICS, LLC, an Ohio limited 

liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEXCOM, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-134-JLS (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

(ECF No. 49)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (“Mot.,” ECF 

No. 49), requesting the Court reconsider its conditional dismissal with prejudice of 

Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim. Also before the Court is Defendant’s Response in 

Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 53) and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of (“Reply,” ECF 

No. 54) the Motion. 

Generally, reconsideration of a prior order 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.” Sch. 

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality 

and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 

Case 3:18-cv-00134-JLS-MSB Document 70 Filed 10/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-CV-134-JLS (KSC)

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

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration 

is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 

1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). 

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration based on its contention that the Court’s dismissal 

with prejudice of Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim is manifestly unjust. Mot. at 5. 

Plaintiff contends that by dismissing its claim with prejudice, the Court closed the door 

forever on Plaintiff moving for leave to amend its claim, even if Plaintiff eventually 

uncovers additional facts to support its willful infringement claim. Id. at 6. Plaintiff 

contends that requiring “detailed factual allegations of Defendant’s egregious conduct in 

order to state a claim for willful infringement . . . prior to having a reasonable opportunity 

to discover such information, or otherwise face dismissal of the claim with prejudice, is 

manifestly unjust.” Id. 

Defendant contends that reconsideration is not warranted for three reasons. First, 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s attempt to “resuscitate its defective willful infringement 

claim through discovery is contrary to law.” Opp’n at 3. Second, Defendant points to 

“many courts [that have] conditionally dismissed” claims similar to this. Id. at 5. Third, 

Defendant contends Plaintiff’s motion must fail because Plaintiff failed to request leave to 

amend in its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. at 5–6. 

After reviewing the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court agrees with Plaintiff 

that the dismissal of its willful infringement claim should be without prejudice. Based on

Plaintiff’s allegations, it is possible that Plaintiff could uncover evidence to support its 

willful infringement claim during discovery. If Plaintiff does obtain additional evidence 

supporting its allegations, the Court agrees that Plaintiff should be allowed to move for 

leave to amend. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

(ECF No. 49) and MODIFIES its February 19, 2019 Order (ECF No. 47) to reflect that 

the dismissal of Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim is without prejudice. 

The Court must make several things clear about the scope of this Order. First, 

Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim remains dismissed. This Order does not revive that 

Case 3:18-cv-00134-JLS-MSB Document 70 Filed 10/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-CV-134-JLS (KSC)

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

claim, and the reasoning for dismissing that claim remains in force. Next, because the 

willful infringement claim remains dismissed, Plaintiff cannot pursue discovery pertaining

solely to that claim. Finally, the Court does not grant Plaintiff leave to amend its Complaint

and Plaintiff should not construe this Order as an invitation to file a motion to amend unless 

it uncovers facts that would support its claim and cure the deficiencies outlined in the 

Court’s February 19, 2019 Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00134-JLS-MSB Document 70 Filed 10/07/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3