United States District Court, D. Delaware
before the Court is ADTRAN's Motion for Clarification and
Reconsideration of the Court's Summary Judgment Order on
License of the Disputed Patents. (D.I. 794; see D.I.
762). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and related papers. (D.I. 794, 815, 826, 854).
motion arises from an ongoing dispute between the parties as
to ten of the patents-in-suit (the "Disputed
Patents"). I summarized the relevant background in my
May 21, 2018 and July 23, 2019 memorandum opinions on the
license issue and incorporate that background here. (D.I. 398
at 1-2; D.I. 674 at 2-4). After allowing the parties to
respond to my clarified construction of the license in the
July 23, 2019 Memorandum Opinion, I denied both parties'
motions for summary judgment as to the G.inp patents-in-suit
in my August 15, 2019 Memorandum Opinion. (D.I. 762 at 4).
ADTRAN now asks that I reconsider the August 15, 2019
decision and clarify what "in conjunction with"
means in the context of the license. (D.I. 794 at 1).
general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain
or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or
amend ... previous rulings" or to "make findings of
fact." Resolution Trust Corp. v. KPMG Peat
Marwick, 1993 WL 211555, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 1993).
"Although a district court may in some circumstances
entertain a motion for clarification to resolve an ambiguity
in a prior order," the movant must show that the court
has a duty to do so. In re Stosic, 770 Fed.Appx. 27,
30 (3d Cir. 2019).
motion for reconsideration is only appropriate to
"correct a clear error of law or to prevent a manifest
injustice in the District Court's original ruling. Such
motions are granted for 'compelling reasons,' such as
a change in the law which reveals that an earlier ruling was
erroneous, not for addressing arguments that a party should
have raised earlier." United States v. Dupree,
617 F.3d 724, 732 (3d Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). Accordingly,
the movant must show: "(1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that
was not available when the court" ruled on the motion;
"or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact
or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood
Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,
677 (3d Cir. 1999).
Motion for Clarification
argues that TQ Delta has offered "multiple, inconsistent
interpretations of the Court's license construction"
and requests that I further clarify my clarified construction
of "in conjunction with." (D.I. 826 at 1, 6). TQ
Delta counters that it is not "reinterpreting" the
clarified construction, but instead applying it "in a
manner consistent with the Court's rulings." (D.I.
815 at 4). To the extent that there is a dispute about the
application of "in conjunction with" to the facts
of this case, it is not because the clarified construction is
vague or ambiguous. Rather, it is a fact question that is for
the jury and not a matter for me to resolve. Inconsistencies
in a party's license interpretation can be brought up on
cross-examination. I have sufficiently clarified the
construction of the license agreement at issue and will not
clarify further. See Resolution Trust Corp, 1993 WL
211555, at *2. Thus, ADTRAN's Motion for Clarification is
Motion for Reconsideration
asks that I reconsider my Order denying its motion for
summary judgment that the G.inp patents-in-suit are licensed
because my ruling was a result of TQ Delta's
"improper reinterpretation" of the clarified
construction of the license. (D.I. 794 at 1). ADTRAN,
however, did not state proper grounds for reconsideration. It
has not shown an intervening change in controlling law or
that new evidence has become available since the Order which
would warrant reconsideration. ADTRAN has also failed to show
that there is error of law or fact that requires my
correction or that manifest injustice would otherwise result.
See Max's Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677.
Therefore, ADTRAN's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
ADTRAN's Motion for Clarification and ...