587 F. App'x 741
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Dow and HRD formed a joint development agreement (JDA) on July 1, 2002 to develop polyethylene wax (PE Wax) with Dow handling R&D and HRD sharing costs; ownership of developments allocated by defined criteria.
- By February 28, 2003, the parties entered a four-year exclusive supply arrangement (SA) for PE Wax, with product specifications set with input from Dow and HRD's SCT.
- HRD alleged the delivered PE Wax did not meet the Prime Product specifications, refused further deliveries, and halted payment; Dow sued for breach of contract and HRD asserted counterclaims.
- The District Court granted Dow summary judgment on breach and on HRD’s remaining counterclaims; HRD’s motions to reopen discovery and for reconsideration were denied, and the court later granted Dow summary judgment on additional counterclaims; HRD appealed.
- The Third Circuit affirmed all four district court orders and the final judgment, rejecting HRD’s SCT amendment theory as waived and upholding the district court’s discovery and ownership determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCT amendment theory preservation | HRD preserved SCT amendment theory in district court | HRD did not squarely raise the SCT amendment theory in district court | Waived; theory not preserved for appeal |
| SCT amendment theory on appeal | If allowed, SCT amended SA to limit volatiles | No preserved argument; theories not squarely raised | Not considered on appeal |
| Discovery re-opening and scope | HRD sought broad patent-related discovery within JDA scope | Dow's scope definition reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion | District court did not abuse discretion; discovery refused affirmed |
| Ownership of developments and patent applications | HRD owned developments reduced to practice under JDA | Developments not reduced to practice under JDA; HRD failed to show connection | District court’s summary judgment on ownership affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Thouron v. United States, 752 F.3d 311 (3d Cir. 2014) (de novo review for some issues; contract interpretation context)
- Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 1999) (preservation of issues for appeal; standards for waiver)
- In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 579 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2009) (claims not raised squarely in district court are waived on appeal)
- Lesende v. Borrero, 752 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2014) (claims not properly articulated waived on appeal)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (summary judgment burden; genuine dispute requires more than metaphysical doubt)
- Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for reconsideration)