Further to our previous report, a motion for reconsideration was filed by MGA Entertainment Inc. and the retailer defendants in this case, and on November 17, 2009, that motion was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
To succeed on the motion for reconsideration, MGA had to overcome a high hurdle. Specifically, under applicable Fifth Circuit law, MGA had to show that there was a mistake of law or fact in the court’s previous ruling, or MGA had to present newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously. See Slip. Op. at 3. In other words, MGA could not prevail by simply relitigating old matters, raising new arguments, or submitting evidence that could have been presented earlier. See id.
In support of its motion, MGA argued that the court, in finding that MGA’s Laser Battle game infringed Innovention’s patent, misapplied the patent claim’s “movable” limitation to the Tower pieces in the Laser Battle game because according to the rules and strategy of the Laser Battle game, the Tower pieces should not be moved during game play.
Unfortunately for MGA, however, the court was not convinced by this argument. Indeed, the court simply cited its previous opinion, where it noted that it was enough that the Tower pieces were capable of being moved, even if the game’s instructions said that they should not be. See Slip. Op. at 4-5. In addition, the court noted that MGA made the same argument on the motion for summary judgment, and it also noted that MGA seemed to be simply disagreeing with the outcome of the court’s previous ruling rather than presenting any mistake or law or fact or newly discovered evidence. See id.
Now that MGA’s motion for reconsideration has been denied, the next ruling in this case will be on Innovention’s motion for a permanent injunction, which the court is scheduled to hear on January 13. We will continue to follow this case.
To succeed on the motion for reconsideration, MGA had to overcome a high hurdle. Specifically, under applicable Fifth Circuit law, MGA had to show that there was a mistake of law or fact in the court’s previous ruling, or MGA had to present newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously. See Slip. Op. at 3. In other words, MGA could not prevail by simply relitigating old matters, raising new arguments, or submitting evidence that could have been presented earlier. See id.
In support of its motion, MGA argued that the court, in finding that MGA’s Laser Battle game infringed Innovention’s patent, misapplied the patent claim’s “movable” limitation to the Tower pieces in the Laser Battle game because according to the rules and strategy of the Laser Battle game, the Tower pieces should not be moved during game play.
Unfortunately for MGA, however, the court was not convinced by this argument. Indeed, the court simply cited its previous opinion, where it noted that it was enough that the Tower pieces were capable of being moved, even if the game’s instructions said that they should not be. See Slip. Op. at 4-5. In addition, the court noted that MGA made the same argument on the motion for summary judgment, and it also noted that MGA seemed to be simply disagreeing with the outcome of the court’s previous ruling rather than presenting any mistake or law or fact or newly discovered evidence. See id.
Now that MGA’s motion for reconsideration has been denied, the next ruling in this case will be on Innovention’s motion for a permanent injunction, which the court is scheduled to hear on January 13. We will continue to follow this case.
