Case Activity (109063)

1. Order | Filed: July 21, 2026 | Entered: July 21, 2026 NEC Corporation v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

   Patent | Delaware

   Order on Motion for Reconsideration

   ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument Under Local Rule 7.1.5 (“Motion”) regarding the Court’s June 30, 2026 Memorandum Opinion (“June 30 MO” or the “MO”), (D.I.  570 ), and the briefing related thereto, (id.; D.I.  605 ), and having heard oral argument related to the Motion during the July 17, 2026 Pretrial Conference, (D.I. 616 (“Tr.”) at 50-84), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED for the reasons that follow:  (1) “[M]otions for reargument should be granted sparingly.”  Stairmaster Sports/Med. Prods., Inc. v. Groupe Procycle, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 270, 292 (D. Del. 1998), aff’d, 232 F.3d 909 (Fed. Cir. 2000); D. Del. L.R. 7.1.5(a).  Courts have recognized three narrow grounds on which this type of motion may typically be based:  (a) “where the Court has patently misunderstood a party,” (b) “[where the Court] has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties,” or (c) “[where the Court] has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.”  Stairmaster Sports/Med. Prods., Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d at 292 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  Here, Plaintiff brings its Motion primarily under the third prong, arguing that “the [June 30] MO either misapprehended or overlooked NEC’s argument” as to whether the accused products calculate a correction amount.  (D.I. 570 at 1; Tr. at 51-52)  Plaintiff also argues that the MO otherwise applied an overly narrow interpretation of the plain meaning of “calculate” and also failed to analyze the accused products that use AVPlayer.  (D.I. 570 at 1); (2) Importantly, “[a] motion for [reargument] may not be used to argue that a court rethink a decision already made, nor may it be used to argue new facts or issues that were inexcusably not presented to the court in the matter previously decided.”  Talley v. Christiana Care Health Sys., Civil Action No. 17-926-CJB, 2019 WL 2605589, at *1 (D. Del. June 25, 2019).  But it is clear that Plaintiff’s Motion seeks to do just that—it presents a mere disagreement with the outcome of the June 30 MO, instead of a valid error of apprehension on the Court’s part.  (See D.I. 605 at 1)  In the June 30 MO, the Court reviewed, in granular detail, each and every one of Plaintiff’s arguments against a grant of summary judgment on this issue—including Plaintiff’s theory that the correction amount is implicitly understood as the difference between the new bit rate and the old bit rate—and concluded that Plaintiff had failed to explain how that could constitute infringement of the 809 patent claims’ requirement of:  (a) first calculating a correction amount; (b) that is then used to update the bit rate.  (D.I. 562 at 4-10)  With its Motion, Plaintiff asserts that the “accused products’ iterative, algorithmic source code—including a for loop that steps through the available bit rates—performs the claimed mathematical calculation of a correction amount[.]”  (D.I. 570 at 1-2; see also Tr. at 55 (Plaintiff’s counsel noting that Dr. Rubin’s “conclusion is that the for-loop is the calculation itself”))  But to the extent that Plaintiff asserts that the Court misapprehended that argument, the June 30 MO actually addressed it head on—explaining that:  (a) NEC had noted in a footnote of its answering brief “without supportive citation or further e... (truncated)

2. Misc | Filed: July 21, 2026 | Entered: July 21, 2026 MCP IP, LLC v. Velocity Outdoor Inc. et al

   Patent | Wisconsin Western

   Redacted Document

   Redaction to 95 Declaration, by Plaintiff MCP IP, LLC (Attachments:
   # 1 Exhibit A 2014-01-23 Engagement Letter,
   # 2 Exhibit B 2018-05-24 Engagement Letter,
   # 3 Exhibit C 2017-10-24 Letter to M. Hebert,
   # 4 Exhibit D Foley Billing Narratives,
   # 5 Exhibit E 2025-03-28 Email fr Laabs to Foley) (Colvin, Matt)

3. 109061 additional result(s)