Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
FORMAX, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ALKAR-RAPIDPAK-MP EQUIPMENT, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation and TOMAHAWK MANUFACTURING, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, Defendants. Case No. 11-C-298

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 7(h) MOTION TO CLARIFY

On August 16, 2011, this Court issued an order, Docket 42-1, granting in part and denying in part a motion for fast- track summary judgment brought by Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equipment, Inc. and Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc. (Defendants) that sought determination of non-infringement of Formax Inc.'s (Formax's) U.S. Patent No. 7,318,723 (the `723 patent). This matter is now before me on Defendants' 7(h) motion "to clarify" that the August 16 Order limits the remaining issues in the case to whether Claim 8 has been infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and whether Claim 13 has been infringed under the doctrine of equivalents only. (ECF 50 at 1.) Defendants' motion also requests reconsideration of the Court's denial of summary judgment for non-infringement of Claim 13 under the doctrine of equivalents. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' 7(h) motion will be denied.

Defendants claim to seek clarity. But this Court's August 16 Order stated: "Defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement will be GRANTED as to literal infringement of Claim 13; it is DENIED in all other respects." (ECF 42-1 at 8) (emphasis added). In other words, besides a determination of literal non-infringement of Claim 13, the order plainly denied resolution of all others arguments. Thus, as Formax notes, through their motion for clarification Defendants are actually "asking the Court to reconsider its opinion and reverse itself." (ECF 51 at 1.) A motion for reconsideration serves a very limited purpose in federal civil litigation; it should be used only "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665

Download 27873.pdf

Wisconsin Law