Opinion
Case No. 12-cv-04962-TSH
10-16-2018
LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDIO BANK, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT
This case is about alleged infringement of two patents, but because the patents have been declared invalid, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. Sua Sponte Order Dismissing Compl., ECF No. 132 (also available at Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank, 2018 WL 4849680 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2018)). Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lakshmi Arunachalam's Motion for Retrial and Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment. As to Plaintiff's motion for retrial, the Court dismissed this case without holding a trial. Plaintiff's motion for retrial is therefore DENIED.
As to Plaintiff's motion to alter the judgment, a district court may alter or amend its judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: "1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law." Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe. R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations, emphasis, and citation omitted). Rule 59(e) "offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). A district court has considerable discretion when deciding a Rule 59(e) motion. Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063.
Here, the Court previously determined issue preclusion prevents Plaintiff from pursuing patent infringement claims for the two patents at issue because they have been declared invalid by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Judge Sue L. Robinson of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and the Federal Circuit. See Arunachalam v. Presidio Bank, 2018 WL 4849680, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2018) (citing Sap Am., Inc., Petitioner, IPR2013-00194, 2014 WL 4716234 (Sept. 18, 2014); Sap Am., Inc., Petitioner, IPR2013-00195, 2014 WL 4716235 (Sept. 18, 2014); Pi-Net Int'l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 42 F. Supp. 3d 579, 588-94 (D. Del. 2014); In re Arunachalam, 709 F. App'x 699, 701-02 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). As Plaintiff fails to show this fact has changed, the Court finds none of the grounds to alter the judgment apply. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2018
/s/_________
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge