DS Advanced Enterprises, LTD. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DS ADVANCED ENTERPRISES, Ltd., Case No.: 3:23-cv-01335-CAB-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO AMEND AND ALTER THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 14 LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Fed. R. Civ. P. §§ 52(b) and 59(e) 15 Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 79] 17 18 Before the Court is a motion brought by plaintiff DS Advanced Enterprises (“DS 19 Advanced”) to vacate the Court’s judgment and for reconsideration of the Court’s order 20 granting summary judgment of noninfringement for defendant Lowe’s Home Centers 21 (“Lowe’s HC”). [Doc. No. 79.] Lowe’s HC filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 83.] DS 22 Advanced filed a reply. [Doc. No. 86.] The Court held argument on January 16, 2025. The 23 motion is DENIED. 24 DS Advanced asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,054,118 against Lowe’s 25 HC. The patent is directed to an apparatus designed to detachably attach a lighting fixture 26 to a ceiling or a recessed lighting fixture housing. [Doc. No. 34-5, at 2.] 27 Lowe’s HC moved for summary judgment of noninfringement based on 28 constructions of certain claim limitations of the patent’s only independent claim and the 1 assertion that the accused device lacked those limitations. After considering the 2 submissions of the parties and counsels’ arguments on the construction of the claim 3 limitation “metal housing,” the Court granted Lowe’s HC’s motion for summary judgment. 4 [Doc. No. 67.] 5 DS Advanced now moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. §§ 52(b) and 59(e) to set aside 6 the judgment for Lowe’s HC and for reconsideration of the Court’s claim construction and 7 its finding of noninfringement. Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used 8 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona 9 Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000.) 10 A district court may properly reconsider its decision under § 59(e) if it is “(1) 11 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 12 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 13 School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc. 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Clear error occurs 14 when “the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction 15 that mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 16 (1948). Motions for reconsideration are not to be used merely as an intermediate appeal 17 before taking a disputed ruling to the circuit court. 18 DS Advanced has not presented newly discovered evidence unavailable to it at the 19 time of filing its opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Nor has it 20 presented an intervening change in the law. DS Advanced contends the Court committed 21 clear error in both its construction of the claim limitation “metal housing” and its 22 determination that the component of the accused device that constitutes the housing 23 limitation is plastic and therefore does not infringe. 24 DS Advanced’s motion is largely focused on a comparison of Lowe’s HC’s accused 25 product with what DS Advanced asserts is its own commercial embodiment of the 26 invention. This comparison is neither relevant to the claim construction or the infringement 27 analysis. “Claim construction, from which an infringement analysis depends, focuses on 28 the recited limitations of the claims, not on the features of a commercial embodiment of 1 the invention.” Myco Indus., Inc. v. BlephEX, LLC, 955 Fl3d 1, 15 (Fed. Cir. 2020) 2 (emphasis in the original). “Infringement is determined on the basis of the claim, not on 3 the basis of a comparison with the patentee’s commercial embodiment of the claimed 4 invention.” ACS Hosp. Sys. Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 5 1984). 6 DS Advanced disputes the Court’s construction of the limitation “metal housing.” 7 Plaintiff misconstrues or misstates the Court’s claim construction in its motion. Further, 8 to the extent plaintiff asserts new claim construction arguments, that is not an appropriate 9 basis for reconsideration of the Court’s claim construction order. 10 DS Advanced still seeks to construe the metal housing limitation based on the 11 configuration of the accused device. For example, claim 1 of the patent includes the 12 following limitation: “a twist connector (118) to attach the output wires of the junction box 13 (116) to the metal housing (108).” DS Advanced illustrates in its infringement contentions 14 that in the accused device there are wires passing through an opening in the “white wafer 15 piece” (i.e., the plastic housing) connecting to a circuit board on a metal disk contained 16 therein. Therefore, DS Advanced argues the metal disk with the circuit board constitutes 17 the “metal housing.” This approach to claim construction based on the configuration of 18 the accused device however is misplaced. See NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, 19 Inc., 287 F.3d 1062, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is well settled that claims may not be 20 construed by reference to the accused device.”) 21 The claim is construed based on its plain language and the specification and then 22 that construction is applied to the accused device to determine if the device is covered. DS 23 Advanced looks to its commercial embodiment and the accused device and contends that 24 any metal structure meets the claim limitation, but this simply ignores the plain meaning 25 26 27 28 1 housing and its identification in the specification as a component separate from the 2 || junction box, the clips, and the lighting fixture.! 3 DS Advanced also argues that the Court should reconsider whether this internal 4 ||metal component contained within the plastic housing of defendant’s accused device, 5 revealed by removing the plastic covering, could be viewed by a jury as meeting the metal 6 ||housing limitation. The Court rejects this argument, whether timely raised or not, as this 7 || metal disk does not meet the Court’s construction of the limitation of a housing. It is a part 8 || of the accused device contained within the plastic housing. 9 Plaintiff has not provided newly discovered evidence, identified an intervening 10 ||change in the controlling law, or demonstrated the court committed clear error in either its 11 |/claim construction or in granting summary judgment of noninfringement for defendant. 12 ||DS Advanced’s motion is therefore DENIED. 13 Itis SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: February 24, 2025 € 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 |; ___ SSS 25 'DS Advanced alleged in its amended complaint [Doc. No. 17, at □□□ that the plastic portion of the 26 || accused device has metallic content and therefore meets the claim limitation but did not argue this in opposition to LHC’s motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the summary judgment motion DS 27 || Advanced reiterated its argument that the housing limitation was met by the metal structures in the 28 accused device including the metal disk beneath the “white wafer piece,” which it contended was simply an added plastic component included as an attempt to avoid infringement. [Doc. No. 45, at 33.]