Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Company, Inc.

Background

Focus Products Group International, LLC, Zahner Design Group Ltd., Hookless Systems of North America, Inc., Sure Fit Home Products, LLC, Sure Fite Home Décor Holdings Corp., and SF Home Décor, LLC sued Kartri Sales Company, Inc. and Marquis Mills, International, Inc. The dispute involved the ’248, ’609, and ’088 utility patents and the EZ ON mark. The court had previously issued a summary-judgment decision, which decides claims when the court finds there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial on a material fact.

The defendants moved for partial reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and the Southern District of New York’s Local Civil Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error that would cause manifest injustice. It is not a way to repeat arguments already considered because a party disagrees with the result.

The Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants first challenged the court’s ruling concerning the ’248 utility patent. They argued that the court’s prior claim-construction decision, called a Markman decision, and statements made during the claim-construction hearing showed that the term “approximately horizontal” could not cover the relevant part of their shower-curtain-ring design. The court found that it had already considered and rejected that argument and the defendants’ other ’248-patent arguments.

The defendants also challenged the court’s rulings concerning the ’609 and ’088 utility patents. They argued that those rulings conflicted with the court’s earlier construction of the terms “projecting edge” and “next to said slit.” The court found that these arguments likewise repeated positions it had already considered and rejected on the merits.

Finally, the defendants sought reconsideration of part of the ruling concerning the EZ ON mark. The court had denied summary judgment on that claim because material factual disputes required resolution by a fact finder. The defendants instead argued that ownership of the mark between the plaintiffs and non-party Carnation should be resolved before the alleged infringement claim proceeded. They did not identify a change in law, new evidence, or clear error showing that no material factual dispute existed.

Ruling

The court denied reconsideration as to the ’248 utility patent and denied reconsideration as to the ’609 and ’088 utility patents. It also denied reconsideration concerning the EZ ON mark because the defendants did not challenge the court’s finding that material factual disputes prevented summary judgment on infringement.

The court stated that the ownership and standing issues raised by the defendants would be resolved at trial, with both sides bearing the burden of showing that they had standing to assert their affirmative claims. It said motions about the presentation of the EZ ON claim might be appropriate later, but were premature while the parties were awaiting a settlement conference and joint pretrial order. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer therefore denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration in its entirety and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket 300.