Free Order on Motion for Reargument - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01230-GIVIS Document 87 Filed O3/O9/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
POR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
APPLERA CORPORATION, MDS INC., )
and APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS/MDS SCIEX )
INSTRUMENTS, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 04-1230 (GMS)
)
v. )
)
THERMO ELECTRON CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )

)
THERMO PINNIGAN LLC, )
)
Plaintiff )
) Civil Action No. 05-110 (GMS)
v. )
)
APPLERA CORPORATION, MDS INC., and )
APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS/MDS SCIEX )
INSTRUMENTS, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2005, the court acceded to the parties’ recommendation to
consolidate the O4-1230 and 05-110 actions for all purposes, including trialgl
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2005, Applera Corporation, MDS Inc., and Applied
Biosystems/MDS Sciex Instruments (collectively, "AB/Sciex") filed a motion to stay the 05-110
I See Transcript of Scheduling Conference, dated April 27, 2005, at 17, 29 (Civ. A. No.
04-1505 D.I. 18) (discussing consolidated schedule and joint trial ofthe 04-1230 and 05-110
actions),

Case 1:04-cv—O1230-G|\/IS Document 87 Filed O3/O9/2006 Page 2 of 3
action, pending the outcome of the Patent and Trademark Office’s reexamination of the patent in
suit;
WHEREAS, on December 28, 2005, the court issued an Order (D.l. 65)2 granting AB/Sciex’s
request;
WHEREAS, the Order also concluded that staying the 04-1230 case until after the 05-110
patent in suit emerged from reexamination would "best serve[] the interests of justice, and is the
most efficient approach to the consolidated schedule that the court has envisioned for the litigation"3;
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2006, AB/Sciex filed a Motion for Reargument (D.l. 66), asking
the court to reconsider its December 28, 2005 Order;
WHEREAS, a motion for reconsideration should be granted only "sparing1y"";
WHEREAS, in this district, motions for reconsideration are granted only if it appears that
the court has patently misunderstood a party, has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning, but of apprehensiorfg
WHEREAS, even if the court has committed one of these errors, there is no need to grant a
2 For convenience, and because AB/Sciex’s motion originally requested a stay of the 05-
110 case, the court will cite to case documents using the D.l. number from the 05-110 case.
3 D.l. 65, at 3.
4 Tristrata Tech. Inc. v. [CNPhar1ns., Inc., 313 F. Supp. 2d 405, 407 (D. Del. 2004); Karr
v. Castle, 768 F. Supp. 1087, 1090 (D. Del. 1991).
5 See, e.g., Shering Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 293, 295 (D. Del. 1998);
Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1240 (D. Del. 1990) (citing Above the Belt,
Inc. v. Mel Bonlzannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Va. 1983)); see also Karr, 768 F. Supp.
at 1090 (citing same).
2

Case 1:04-cv—O1230-Gl\/IS Document 87 Filed O3/O9/2006 Page 3 of 3
motion for reconsideration if it would not alter the courts initial decision°; and
WHEREAS, the court concludes that granting AB/Sciex’s motion would not alter its initial
decision;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. AB/Sciex’s Motion for Reargument (D.I. 66) is DENIED.
Dated; March ci ,2006 gg 1 ggj — j
UN D STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
F [ L E D
MAH 9
US. DIST
mm mc? con
HIST OF DELAWEA-E
6 See Pirelli Cable Corp. v. Cierza Corp., 988 F. Supp. 424, 455 (D. Del. 1998).
3