United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
LEROY G. HAGENBUCH, PLAINTIFF,
SONRAI SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT
LeRoy G Hagenbuch, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Michael D.
Freeborn, LEAD ATTORNEY, Joseph L. Fogel, Freeborn & Peters,
Chicago, IL; Jacob D Koering, Jonathan Hill, Freeborn &
Peters LLP, Chicago, IL.
Sonrai Systems, Defendant, Counter Claimant: Roger H. Stein,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Nixon Peabody, Chicago, IL; James Joseph
Jagoda, Lisa Colleen Sullivan, Nixon Peabody LLP, Chicago,
OPINION AND ORDER
Thomas M. Durkin, United States District Judge.
G. Hagenbuch sued defendant Sonrai Systems for allegedly
infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,644,489 (the " '489
Patent" ) and U.S. Patent No. 5,416,706 (the "
'706 Patent" ) (collectively, "
Patents-in-Suit" ). R. 1. On March 27, 2015, the Court
granted Sonrai's motion for summary judgment of patent
expiration as to both patents. R. 48 ( Hagenbuch v.
Sonrai Systems, No. 13 C 7042, 2015 WL 1503423 (N.D.
Ill. Mar. 27, 2015)). Hagenbuch has filed a motion to
reconsider the Court's ruling as it applies to the
'489 Patent, only. R. 50. For the following reasons, the
Court grants Hagenbuch's motion.
Court will assume that the reader is familiar with its
memorandum opinion granting Sonrai's summary judgment
for reconsideration " serve a limited function: to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit
Agricole v. CBI Indus., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir.
1996) (citation omitted). They are proper where the court
" has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a
decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the
Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning
but of apprehension." Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester
Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)
(citations omitted). Motions for reconsideration are not,
however, " appropriate vehicle[s] for relitigating
arguments that the Court previously rejected or for arguing
issues that could have been raised during the consideration
of the motion presently under reconsideration."
Caine v. Burge, 897 F.Supp.2d 714, 717 (N.D. Ill.
2012) (citing Caisse, 90 F.3d at 1270).
The Court's Ruling that the Patents-in-Suit have
the prosecution of U.S. Application Serial No. 351,179 (the
'179 Application), the patent examiner raised an
obvious-type double patenting objection. Hagenbuch,
2015 WL 1503423, at *1. Hagenbuch attempted to satisfy the
examiner's objection by filing a terminal disclaimer
similar to the form disclaimer in the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (" MPEP" ):
I hereby disclaim the terminal part of any patent granted
on the above-identified application, which would extend
beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of
United States Patent No. 4,839,835 [the '835 Patent] . .
Id. at *2 (emphasis added). Through several file
wrapper continuations, the '179 Application became U.S.
Application Serial No. 08/102,531 (the '531 Application).
Id. at *1. During the prosecution of that
application, the examiner reinstated the obvious-type double
patenting objection because the disclaimer Hagenbuch had
previously filed " was worded in such that it did not
apply to any subsequently filed applications claiming benefit