Hewlett Packard Co. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co.
791 F. Supp. 2d 175
D.D.C.2011Background
- MDL involves Papst asserting patent infringement against multiple camera manufacturers, including HP; HP moved to strike Papst's asserted claims against HP devices after Papst admitted HP devices do not infringe under the court's claim construction; court had previously entered Sixth Practice and Procedure Order defining the required specificity of Papst's Final Asserted Claims and Contentions; Papst sought entry of judgment against HP and a stay; court denied entry, stayed against other parties, and Papst’s admissions were treated as binding; Papst moved for partial reconsideration of the ruling striking HP-related claims; HP sought sanctions but court declined to sanction Papst for the motion; the court reaffirmed that Papst is bound by its admissions and that reconsideration was inappropriate under Rule 54(b)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Papst's motion for partial reconsideration is warranted | Papst contends the court misunderstood arguments and should reinstate new theories against HP | HP argues no intervening change or new evidence; reconsideration improper | Denied; no error warranting reconsideration found |
| Whether Papst admissions bind HP and preclude further infringement contentions | Papst argues admissions were withdrawable or non-binding | HP relies on binding admissions from Papst despite stipulation not entered | Papst bound by its admissions that HP devices do not infringe under the court's construction |
| Whether sanctions are appropriate against Papst and counsel | Papst motion for reconsideration itself allegedly multiplied proceedings | Sanctions require clear and convincing evidence of vexatiousness; not shown | Denied; motion not sanctionable; no evidence of misconduct established |
Key Cases Cited
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261 (1880) (admissions by counsel may be binding and controlling in court proceedings)
- Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (non-infringement not created by potential for third-party products to cause infringement)
- High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (what a device was intended to do, not what it could be made to do, governs infringement)
- Hap Corp. v. Heyman Mfg. Co., 311 F.2d 839 (1st Cir. 1962) (expansive views on what constitutes infringement)
- Cobell v. Norton, 355 F.Supp.2d 531 (D.D.C. 2005) (factors for reconsideration under 54(b) and necessity of justice)
- Ficken v. Golden, 696 F.Supp.2d 21 (D.D.C. 2010) (analysis of reconsideration standards and justice as the guide)