Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises Inc, C15-522RSL. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20171205d83
Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on defendants' "Motion for Reconsideration." Dkt. # 162. On November 14, 2017, the Court rejected defendants' contention that, because its products do not include the single serve beverage brewer described in the introductory paragraph to claim 8 of the '855 patent, they cannot infringe. Defendants argue that this finding constitutes manifest error and should be recons
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on defendants' "Motion for Reconsideration." Dkt. # 162. On November 14, 2017, the Court rejected defendants' contention that, because its products do not include the single serve beverage brewer described in the introductory paragraph to claim 8 of the '855 patent, they cannot infringe. Defendants argue that this finding constitutes manifest error and should be reconsi..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendants' "Motion for Reconsideration." Dkt. # 162. On November 14, 2017, the Court rejected defendants' contention that, because its products do not include the single serve beverage brewer described in the introductory paragraph to claim 8 of the '855 patent, they cannot infringe. Defendants argue that this finding constitutes manifest error and should be reconsidered under LCR 7(h)(1). While it is undoubtedly true that the description of the brewer with which plaintiff's invention is intended to be used adds clarity to the description of the invention, it does not define the invention. The fact that defendants' products do not include a single server beverage brewer does not prevent a finding that defendants infringed the '855 patent. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
