Nox Med. Ehf v. Natus Neurology, Inc.

Nox Med. Ehf v. Natus Neurology, Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently before me is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on Enhancement of Damages. (D.I. 332). The Parties have fully briefed the issues. (D.I. 333, 337, 343). Because I did not previously [*2]  appreciate the differences between the related U.S. and European patents, I will GRANT Plaintiff's motion.

The Parties are familiar with the facts of this case. The subject of the present motion is whether I erred by inferring that Defendant had a good faith belief in the invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 9,059,532 ('"532 Patent") based on Defendant's invalidity challenge to the '532 Patent's European counterpart. Because my inference was erroneous, I must also consider what impact, if any, that error has on my decision not to enhance damages.

I. Legal Standard

A. Reargument

The purpose of a motion for reargument or reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "[M]otions for reconsideration 'should not be used to rehash arguments already briefed.'" BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 429, 432 (D. Del. 2002) (quoting Schering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998)). To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a party must demonstrate one of the following: "(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Max's Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677.

B. Enhanced Damages

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