Cummins Engine Co. v. Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that Rule 59(e) motions are “not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled”
• “A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.”
• “A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.”
• “[ABL’s] assertions in this regard are patently false.... SmartGene consistently asserted that it was contesting the validity of all of the claims in both the '786 patent and the '988 patent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).