Abbott Laboratories v. Revitalyte LLC
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Abbott Laboratories v. Revitalyte LLC
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abbott Laboratories, Civil No. 23-1449 (DWF/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
Revitalyte LLC,
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Revitalyte LLC’s (“Revitalyte”)
request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 99) of the Court’s
December 4, 2024 order (Doc. No. 98) insofar as the Court overruled Revitalyte’s
objections. Plaintiff Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) opposes the request. (Doc.
No. 100.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the request for permission to
file a motion for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
Among other things, Abbott claims that Revitalyte infringed on the Pedialyte trade
dress. (Doc. No. 22 ¶¶ 170-77, 196-203.) Revitalyte moved to compel Abbott to respond
to certain interrogatories related to that alleged infringement (Doc. No. 72) and
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz granted in part and denied in part Revitalyte’s motion
(Doc. No. 91). Revitalyte objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order as to the
interrogatories which were not compelled: Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 20. (Doc.
No. 93.) The Court overruled Revitalyte’s objections as to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 4,
and 20. (Doc. No. 98.) Revitalyte now requests permission to file a motion to reconsider
that order. (Doc. No. 99.)
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must show “compelling circumstances” to
obtain permission to file a motion to reconsider.1 D. Minn. R. 7.1(j). Motions to reconsider “afford an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348
(D. Minn. 1993). Such motions “cannot be employed to repeat arguments previously made” or to make “arguments that could have been made” previously. Kelley ex rel. BMO Litig. Tr. v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., No. 19-cv-1826,2020 WL 1701696
, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 8,
2020).
Revitalyte first argues that the Court erred in overruling its objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s ruling as to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 because the information is
relevant to the analysis of the trade dress’s functionality. (Doc. No. 99 at 1.) Revitalyte
already made its arguments on the relevance of each element individually and the Court
decided that looking at the whole of the trade dress was not clearly erroneous or contrary
1 Local Rule 7.1(j) also limits a request to file a motion to reconsider to a maximum
of two pages. D. Minn. R. 7.1(j). Revitalyte’s request exceeds this limit. (See Doc. No. 99.) While the Court could have denied this request on procedural grounds, the Court will nonetheless explain the substantive deficiencies in the request. to law. (Doc. No. 93 at 9-10; Doc. No. 98 at 4.) Revitalyte is precluded from repeating this argument in a motion for reconsideration. See Kelley,2020 WL 1701696
, at *1.
Revitalyte also argues that the order as to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 conflicts with
the Court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings because the requested
information is relevant to issues of functionality that the Court stated would “be decided
at a later stage in th[e] proceeding[s].” (Doc. No. 99 at 2 (quoting Doc. No. 67 at 10).)
However, the Court’s overruling of Revitalyte’s objections does not preclude decisions
about functionality. As explained, to determine what is protectable trade dress, the Court
looks at the total image of a product, not the individual features. (Doc. No. 98 at 3.) The
Court is able to analyze the trade dress based on the information available to Revitalyte.
With regard to Interrogatory No. 1, Revitalyte points out that the single claimed
trade dress covers three product lines with different features, implying that the trade dress
is unprotectable because there is no singular appearance. (Doc. No. 99 at 2-3.) This
argument could have been but was not made in Revitalyte’s objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s decision. (Doc. No. 93 at 2-7.) Instead, Revitalyte’s objections focused on the
lack of specificity in Abbott’s response to Interrogatory No. 1. (See id.) Revitalyte is
therefore precluded from arguing that the lack of completely consistent features requires
an amended response now. See Kelley, 2020 WL 1701696, at *1.
Revitalyte makes a similar argument about product distinctions within the single
trade dress to support the reconsideration regarding Interrogatory No. 20. (Doc. No. 99
at 3.) Revitalyte reasons that per-unit sales data is necessary to decide if the trade dress
has acquired distinctiveness. (Id.) This argument was previously made by Revitalyte in
its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s decision and the Court found that the decision
was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. (Doc. No. 93 at 13; Doc. No. 98 at 7-8.)
Revitalyte is therefore precluded from arguing it now as this is a “repeat argument[].”
Kelley, 2020 WL 1701696, at *1.
CONCLUSION
Having fully considered the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes that
Defendant has failed to demonstrate the compelling circumstances necessary to justify a
motion to reconsider the Court’s December 4, 2024 order. The Court respectfully denies
Revitalyte’s request for permission to file a motion to reconsider.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Defendant’s request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration
(Doc. No. [99]) is respectfully DENIED.
Dated: December 18, 2024 s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Abbott Laboratories, Civil No. 23-1449 (DWF/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
Revitalyte LLC,
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Revitalyte LLC’s (“Revitalyte”)
request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 99) of the Court’s
December 4, 2024 order (Doc. No. 98) insofar as the Court overruled Revitalyte’s
objections. Plaintiff Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) opposes the request. (Doc.
No. 100.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the request for permission to
file a motion for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
Among other things, Abbott claims that Revitalyte infringed on the Pedialyte trade
dress. (Doc. No. 22 ¶¶ 170-77, 196-203.) Revitalyte moved to compel Abbott to respond
to certain interrogatories related to that alleged infringement (Doc. No. 72) and
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz granted in part and denied in part Revitalyte’s motion
(Doc. No. 91). Revitalyte objected to the Magistrate Judge’s order as to the
interrogatories which were not compelled: Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 20. (Doc.
No. 93.) The Court overruled Revitalyte’s objections as to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 4,
and 20. (Doc. No. 98.) Revitalyte now requests permission to file a motion to reconsider
that order. (Doc. No. 99.)
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must show “compelling circumstances” to
obtain permission to file a motion to reconsider.1 D. Minn. R. 7.1(j). Motions to reconsider “afford an opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances.” Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348
(D. Minn. 1993). Such motions “cannot be employed to repeat arguments previously made” or to make “arguments that could have been made” previously. Kelley ex rel. BMO Litig. Tr. v. BMO Harris Bank N.A., No. 19-cv-1826,2020 WL 1701696
, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 8,
2020).
Revitalyte first argues that the Court erred in overruling its objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s ruling as to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 because the information is
relevant to the analysis of the trade dress’s functionality. (Doc. No. 99 at 1.) Revitalyte
already made its arguments on the relevance of each element individually and the Court
decided that looking at the whole of the trade dress was not clearly erroneous or contrary
1 Local Rule 7.1(j) also limits a request to file a motion to reconsider to a maximum
of two pages. D. Minn. R. 7.1(j). Revitalyte’s request exceeds this limit. (See Doc. No. 99.) While the Court could have denied this request on procedural grounds, the Court will nonetheless explain the substantive deficiencies in the request. to law. (Doc. No. 93 at 9-10; Doc. No. 98 at 4.) Revitalyte is precluded from repeating this argument in a motion for reconsideration. See Kelley,2020 WL 1701696
, at *1.
Revitalyte also argues that the order as to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4 conflicts with
the Court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings because the requested
information is relevant to issues of functionality that the Court stated would “be decided
at a later stage in th[e] proceeding[s].” (Doc. No. 99 at 2 (quoting Doc. No. 67 at 10).)
However, the Court’s overruling of Revitalyte’s objections does not preclude decisions
about functionality. As explained, to determine what is protectable trade dress, the Court
looks at the total image of a product, not the individual features. (Doc. No. 98 at 3.) The
Court is able to analyze the trade dress based on the information available to Revitalyte.
With regard to Interrogatory No. 1, Revitalyte points out that the single claimed
trade dress covers three product lines with different features, implying that the trade dress
is unprotectable because there is no singular appearance. (Doc. No. 99 at 2-3.) This
argument could have been but was not made in Revitalyte’s objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s decision. (Doc. No. 93 at 2-7.) Instead, Revitalyte’s objections focused on the
lack of specificity in Abbott’s response to Interrogatory No. 1. (See id.) Revitalyte is
therefore precluded from arguing that the lack of completely consistent features requires
an amended response now. See Kelley, 2020 WL 1701696, at *1.
Revitalyte makes a similar argument about product distinctions within the single
trade dress to support the reconsideration regarding Interrogatory No. 20. (Doc. No. 99
at 3.) Revitalyte reasons that per-unit sales data is necessary to decide if the trade dress
has acquired distinctiveness. (Id.) This argument was previously made by Revitalyte in
its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s decision and the Court found that the decision
was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. (Doc. No. 93 at 13; Doc. No. 98 at 7-8.)
Revitalyte is therefore precluded from arguing it now as this is a “repeat argument[].”
Kelley, 2020 WL 1701696, at *1.
CONCLUSION
Having fully considered the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes that
Defendant has failed to demonstrate the compelling circumstances necessary to justify a
motion to reconsider the Court’s December 4, 2024 order. The Court respectfully denies
Revitalyte’s request for permission to file a motion to reconsider.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Defendant’s request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration
(Doc. No. [99]) is respectfully DENIED.
Dated: December 18, 2024 s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown