UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

:

ASTRAZENECA AB, et al. :

:

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 11-760 (JAP)

:

v. :

: OPINION

HANMI USA, INC., et al. :

:

:

: 

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

PISANO, District Judge.

This is a patent infringement action brought by Plaintiffs AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget 

Hässle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI Inc. and KBI-E Inc. (collectively, “Astra” or “Plaintiffs”) against 

defendants Hanmi, Inc., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hanmi Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. and 

Hanmi Holdings Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Hanmi” or “Defendants”). On December 12, 2012, this 

Court entered its Markman decision construing a number of disputed claim terms in the asserted 

patents. Presently before the Court is a motion by Plaintiffs asking the Court to reconsider its 

construction of one of those claim terms. Specifically, Plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration 

of the Court’s construction of the term “alkaline salt” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,714,504 

(“the ʼ504 patent”), which the Court construed to be limited to the six specific salt species recited 

in the specification.

Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration and requires the moving 

party to “set[ ] forth concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 282 Filed 03/25/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 10008
2

Judge or Magistrate Judge has overlooked[.]” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i). The party seeking 

reconsideration bears a heavy burden and “must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s 

decision.” G–69 v. Degnan, 748 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.N.J. 1990). The Third Circuit has made 

clear that motions for reconsideration should only be granted in three situations: (1) when an 

intervening change in controlling law has occurred; (2) when new evidence becomes available; 

or (3) when reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law, or to prevent manifest 

injustice. North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). 

Importantly, motions for reconsideration are “not a substitute for the appellate process,” nor are 

they “an opportunity to argue what could have been, but was not, argued in the original set of 

moving and responsive papers.” Bowers v. NCAA, 130 F.Supp.2d 610, 613 (D.N.J. 2001). 

“Because reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy, requests 

pursuant to these rules are to be granted ‘sparingly.’” NL Indus. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 

935 F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996) (quoting Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F.Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J.

1986)). 

Astra bases its motion on two grounds. First, it alleges that the Court “overlooked” the 

Federal Circuit’s “controlling” decision in Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies, 318 F.3d 1081, 

1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2003). As Defendants point out, Rambus stands for the proposition that 

claims are generally not limited to the embodiments referred to in the specification unless the 

rest of the intrinsic evidence is consistent with that reading. It was as support for that 

unremarkable proposition that Rambus made its sole appearance in Astra’s claim construction 

submissions -- as part of a string cite in Astra’s responsive brief. Astra made no mention of 

Rambus in its opening brief or at oral argument.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 282 Filed 03/25/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 10009
3

In its argument on this motion, the Court finds Plaintiffs to be overstating the controlling 

nature of Rambus. Further, while the Court did not specifically cite Rambus, it certainly 

considered and addressed the basic legal principles involved in the case. Astra’s efforts here

seem to be an attempt to reargue and expand upon points it previously made during the claim 

construction process and which have already been considered by the Court. 

Second, Astra’s contends that the Court, in finding that the presumption of claim 

differentiation had been overcome in construing the term “alkaline salts,” placed “undue reliance 

on the language of the specification” and relied upon “inapposite” precedent. Here again, 

however, Astra is in essence attempting to reargue and expand upon points previously addressed 

by the parties and considered by the Court. That is not appropriate on a motion for 

reconsideration.

In sum, the Court finds the standards for granting the extraordinary remedy of 

reconsideration have not been met and, consequently, denies Astra’s motion. An appropriate 

Order accompanies this Opinion.

/s/ Joel A. Pisano 

Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J.

Dated: March 25, 2013

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 282 Filed 03/25/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 10010