PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC. v. HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC., 5:11-CV-459-F. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120405c25
Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on Pentair's "Rule 54(b) Motion for Reconsideration of Tentative Ruling Denying Preliminary Injunction" [DE-125]. Hayward has responded in opposition [DE-137], and Pentair filed a reply [DE-144]. The court remains convinced that its findings and conclusions set forth in the order of January 23, 2012 [DE-119] were correct when entered. Pentair has pointed to no intervening change in controlling law, additional evidence
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on Pentair's "Rule 54(b) Motion for Reconsideration of Tentative Ruling Denying Preliminary Injunction" [DE-125]. Hayward has responded in opposition [DE-137], and Pentair filed a reply [DE-144]. The court remains convinced that its findings and conclusions set forth in the order of January 23, 2012 [DE-119] were correct when entered. Pentair has pointed to no intervening change in controlling law, additional evidence n..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Pentair's "Rule 54(b) Motion for Reconsideration of Tentative Ruling Denying Preliminary Injunction" [DE-125]. Hayward has responded in opposition [DE-137], and Pentair filed a reply [DE-144].
The court remains convinced that its findings and conclusions set forth in the order of January 23, 2012 [DE-119] were correct when entered. Pentair has pointed to no intervening change in controlling law, additional evidence not previously available, or ground on which this court perceives clear error or manifest injustice. See Akeva L.L.C. v. Adidas America, Inc., 385 F.Supp.2d 559, 565 (M.D.N.C. 2005). Pentair's Motion for Reconsideration [DE-125] is DENIED.
The parties are directed to begin discussing alternative dates after September 2012, for their Markman hearing on claim construction. They are DIRECTED to confer and to submit a joint statement of proposed agreed dates for the court's consideration on or before July 2, 2012.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
