On December 10, 2014, the Southern District of New York denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a 2006 claim construction ruling and vacate a related summary judgment order. Plaintiff requested the relief following a contrary claim construction ruling in an ex parte reexamination. The court summarized plaintiff’s argument stating “[a]lthough [plaintiff] concedes that its proposed course of action would result in disrupting litigation which has relied, for eight years, on the 2006 Markman ruling, it nevertheless contends that ‘reconsideration would promote judicial economy and efficiency’ because ‘reversal [of the 2006 Markman ruling] is likely.’”
The court disagreed with plaintiff for two reasons. First, Judge Sullivan noted that “put simply, the PTO Ruling is not binding on this court, nor is it binding on the Federal Circuit.” Second, “[plaintiff] has repeatedly sought -- and has been repeatedly denied -- reconsideration of the 2006 Markman ruling based on the contrary construction in [another case involving the same patent]. The fact that the PTO ruling is apparently consistent with [that other case] does not alter the court's conclusion about whether reconsideration is warranted, nor does it undermine the soundness of the 2006 Markman ruling.” In closing, the court held that “other than a generic invocation of judicial economy, [plaintiff] fails to provide any rationale for the court to suddenly be swayed by a contrary construction.”
Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al v. Molecular Probes, 1-03-cv-03816 (S.D.N.Y. December 10, 2014).