Reconsideration denied where Plaintiff injected new arguments
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 20, 2006.
Jordan, J. Motion for reargument and reconsideration of previous ruling of non-infringement is denied.
The technology relates to digital cameras. The standard for reconsideration is high. Ampex asserts that it did not have a fair opportunity to address whether the addition of the term “said” to “video pixel data” was a narrowing amendment that triggers a presumption of prosecutorial estoppel. Plaintiff claimed it did not address that issue in detail earlier because defendants had not met their burden to show a narrowing amendment had been made. The court rejected Ampex’s argument, noting that rather than contending that the amendment was not narrowing, it assumed the presumption was raised and then argued it was overcome. Reconsideration is not appropriate to address new facts or issues that were inexcusably not presented in the matter previously decided. Even if proper grounds for the motion existed, the court finds Ampex has not shown the court erred.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
