Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC

Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC

Opinion

ORDER ON ESET'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 708]

On October 16, 2019, the Court entered an order denying ESET's motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of three of the patents-at-issue¹ and summary judgment on Finjan's claim for willful infringement. [Doc. No. 699.] ESET now moves for reconsideration of that order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), on the grounds that the determination of the non-infringement motions is a matter of law, not a factual dispute, and that Finjan has no competent evidence to support a claim of willful infringement, so it is error for the Court to send these issues to the jury. [Doc. [*4]  No. 708.] The motion for reconsideration is Denied in Part and Granted in Part.

Reconsideration of a prior order is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty. V. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is in the "sound discretion" of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

In the motion for reconsideration, ESET reargues its position that the infringement evidence presented by Finjan's experts does not properly apply the Court's claim constructions and factually mispresents the operations of the accused systems and software. In the context of a motion for summary judgment the Court must not weigh the credibility of the evidence and determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Further the non-movant's evidence is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the non-movant's favor. Id., at 255. The Court concluded that "there are genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Id. at 250. The motion for reconsideration does [*5]  not establish that the Court's order denying the motions for summary judgment of non-infringement were clearly erroneous.

If at trial, it becomes apparent that plaintiff has not applied the Court's claim construction, as ESET contends, or that Finjan has not produced evidence upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict of infringement by a preponderance of the evidence, ESET may procedurally move for a verdict pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 (a). However, on the documentary evidence before the Court on the motions for summary judgment of non-infringement, the Court will not reconsider its determination that material facts are in dispute. The request for interlocutory appeal is also denied as the motions were denied based on factual disputes, not as a matter of law.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.