Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 212 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 9932
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00040-JRG
`
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00041-JRG
`
`
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is the Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., HUAWEI
`DEVICE USA INC.,
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`America, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 93) On
`
`The “Forward Facing” Terms (Dkt. No. 107) (the “Motion”). In the Motion, Defendants Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) request the Court
`
`reconsider its construction of the “forward facing” claim terms as addressed in its Claim
`
`Construction Order. (Dkt. No. 93.)
`
`Having considered the Motion, the associated briefing, and for the reasons set forth below,
`
`the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) filed the above-captioned suit
`
`against Samsung on February 4, 2021, alleging infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,194,924 (the “’924
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00040-JRG
`
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00041-JRG
`
`
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is the Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD., HUAWEI
`DEVICE USA INC.,
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`America, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 93) On
`
`The “Forward Facing” Terms (Dkt. No. 107) (the “Motion”). In the Motion, Defendants Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) request the Court
`
`reconsider its construction of the “forward facing” claim terms as addressed in its Claim
`
`Construction Order. (Dkt. No. 93.)
`
`Having considered the Motion, the associated briefing, and for the reasons set forth below,
`
`the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Gesture”) filed the above-captioned suit
`
`against Samsung on February 4, 2021, alleging infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,194,924 (the “’924
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 212 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 9933
`
`Patent”); 7,933,431 (the “’431 Patent”); 8,878,949 (the “’949 Patent”); and 8,553,079 (the “’079
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Case No. 2:21-cv-41, Dkt. No. 1.) Gesture
`
`accused certain Samsung’s smartphones and tablets, including the Samsung Galaxy Note Series,
`
`S Series, Z Series, A Series, M Series, Galaxy Tab S7/7+, S6, S5, and S4 products.
`
`The Court held a claim construction hearing on September 21, 2021 and issued its Claim
`
`Construction Order on October 12, 2021. (Dkt. No. 93.)
`
`II.
`
` LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A motion for reconsideration may be granted on the following three grounds: “(1) an
`
`intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously
`
`available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” In re
`
`Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Samsung argues that the Court should reconsider its claim constructions of the terms
`
`“forward facing portion” and “forward facing light source,” which the Court found to have their
`
`plain meanings. (Dkt. No. 107 at 2.) Samsung contends that it did not know the Court would
`
`conclude that “forward facing” is “just a label” in the context of the claims. Further, Samsung
`
`says, had it known that, it would have brought up statements made by Gesture in a parallel inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
`
`which allegedly contradict such a conclusion. (Id. at 3-5.) These statements include Gesture’s
`
`alleged position that an “upward facing” portion of a prior art device was not the same as a
`
`“forward facing” portion. (Id. at 4.)
`
`Gesture responds that, as an initial matter, the Motion is improper because the IPR
`
`statements Samsung relies on in the Motion were available to and known by Samsung before the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 212 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 9934
`
`claim construction hearing was held in this case. (Dkt. No. 110 at 1-2.) Gesture further responds
`
`that none of the statements it made during the IPR contradict the Court’s conclusions, there was
`
`no clear or unequivocal disavowal of claim scope, and nothing in the Claim Construction Order
`
`constitutes a “manifest injustice” requiring reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 110 at 2.)
`
`The Court agrees with Gesture. A motion for reconsideration is not merely a chance for
`
`one party to relitigate claim construction. The statements Samsung seeks to rely upon in the
`
`Motion were made before the claim construction hearing and Samsung was aware of those
`
`statements. The fact that Samsung regrets not having referenced the statements does not convert
`
`them into new evidence not previously available. Samsung says it did not know that the Court
`
`might conclude that “forward facing” is “just a label.” This seems to say that unless a party knows
`
`precisely what the Court may conclude at claim construction it gets another chance. If that were
`
`true, every claim construction hearing would always be the first of several hearings and the claim
`
`construction process would rapidly become a never-ending quagmire. This court has no desire to
`
`signal the same to these parties in particular or the entire bar in general.
`
`In addition, on the merits, the Court finds that the statements cited by Samsung are merely
`
`additional evidence that may have weighed, to some degree, towards Samsung’s position.
`
`However, none of the statements directly contradict the Court’s rationale or ultimate constructions
`
`and certainly do not rise to the level of rendering the Court’s constructions a “manifest injustice.”
`
`Parties with clever lawyers can always think of something more to say, if given the opportunity.
`
`That is not the test for reconsideration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 212 Filed 01/25/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 9935
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated herein, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Order
`
`(Dkt. 93) On The “Forward Facing” Terms (Dkt. No. 107) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`4
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of January, 2022.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
