Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa RX LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

April 10, 2017

TECH PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC
v.
ALIXA RX LLC, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL SENIOR CARE LLC d/b/a GOLDEN LIVINGCENTERS, FILLMORE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, FILLMORE STRATEGIC INVESTORS, LLC, and FILLMORE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, LLC

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending the Court is Alixa Rx LLC, Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC d/b/a Golden LivingCenters, Fillmore Capital Partners, LLC, Fillmore Strategic Investors, LLC, and Fillmore Strategic Management, LLC's (“Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate's Order on Motion for Leave to Supplement P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. #158). After considering the relevant pleadings, the Court denies Defendants' motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Alixa Rx LLC and Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC (“Original Defendants”) on November 2, 2015 (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff amended its complaint on January 22, 2016, adding state law claims for breach of contract and torts to the original patent infringement claims (Dkt. #14).

         On May 27, 2016, the Original Defendants served their initial P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions in accordance with the scheduling order deadline (Dkt. #109, Ex. A; Dkt. #52).

         On August 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for Leave to Add Parties (Dkt. #78. The Court granted leave, and on September 1, 2016, Plaintiff amended its complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) to add the Fillmore Capital Partners LLC, Fillmore Strategic Management LLC, and Fillmore Strategic Investors LLC (“Fillmore Defendants”) (Dkt. #83). The amendment added the Fillmore Defendants to the state law causes of action but did not make substantive changes to any theory of the case.

         Opening claim construction briefing was due September 9, 2016, followed by responsive briefing on September 23, 2016, and reply briefing on September 30, 2016 (Dkt. #52). On October 7, 2016, Defendants sent a copy of proposed amended invalidity contentions to Plaintiff. The Court conducted a claim construction hearing on October 14, 2016 (Dkt. #108). Also on October 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to Supplement their P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. #109). The Court issued its claim construction order on October 28, 2016 (Dkt. #121).

         On January 19, 2017, the magistrate judge, on referral, issued an order denying Defendants' Motion for Leave to Supplement their P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. #146). On February 2, 2017, Defendants' filed the present Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate's Order (Dkt. #158). On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. #166). On February 23, 2017, Defendants filed a reply (Dkt. #170), and on March 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #174).

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Motions to reconsider serve a very limited purpose: “to permit a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence.” Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 329, 331 (W.D. Tex. 2002) (citations omitted). Mere disagreement with a district court's order does not warrant reconsideration of that order. Id. at 332. A party should not restate, recycle, or rehash arguments that were previously made. Id. District court opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Rather, “litigants are expected to present their strongest case when the matter is first considered.” Louisiana v. Sprint Comms. Co., 899 F.Supp. 282, 284 (M.D. La. 1995) (citation omitted).

         “[A] motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence' and ‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.'” Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863-64 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate issues that were resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction.” Glass v. United States, No. 3:00-cv-1543, 2004 WL 2189634, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (citing Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1989)). “District courts have ‘considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to alter a judgment.'” Id. (citing Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995)). “In exercising this discretion, a district court must ‘strike the proper balance between the need for finality and the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.'” Id.

         ANALYSIS

         Defendants seek a reconsideration of the magistrate judge's prior order denying their motion for leave to supplement their P.R. 3-3 invalidity contentions (Dkt. #158). The Court is not inclined to reconsider its prior rulings. Under the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas, Appendix B Patent Rules, leave to amend invalidity contentions “may be made only by order of the court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of good cause.” P.R. 3-6(b). “Good cause, ” according to the Federal Circuit, “requires a showing of diligence.” O2 MicroInt'l Ltd. v. Monolithic ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.