AND NOW, this 15h day of September, 2009, upon consideration of the order of court (Doc. 599) dated September 14th, 2009, wherein the court excluded evidence of "Bridgeport's decision to use catalog numbers and product numbers for its connectors that may appear similar to the numbers Arlington uses for its connectors," (id. at 1-2), and the facsimile received from counsel for Arlington, which was transmitted on the date hereof,*fn1 and which seeks to "clarify Arlington's statement that it would not seek to introduce evidence concerning the similarities between Bridgeport Fittings' and Arlington's product catalog numbers,"*fn2 and upon further consideration of the argument conducted on the record on the date hereof, and it appearing that evidence of Bridgeport's Whipper-Snap catalog numbers-and their comparison to Arlington's catalog numbers-is relevant to the totality inquiry required by In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and the damages calculation required by Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978), and that a district court has the inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory orders "when it is consonant with justice to do so," United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600, 605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App'x 119, 121 (3d Cir. 2008), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The facsimile received from counsel, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is CONSTRUED as a motion for reconsideration as is GRANTED as so construed.
2. The provision contained in the order of court (Doc. 599) dated September 14, 2009, which granted Bridgeport's motion to exclude evidence that the "catalog numbers and product numbers for its connectors . . . may appear similar to the numbers Arlington uses for its connectors" is VACATED. Arlington witness Thomas Gretz shall be permitted to present a comparison of the parties' catalog numbers, but Arlington shall not be permitted to present evidence of e-mails exchanged between Bridgeport employees, wherein Bridgeport's product numbers were discussed, (see Exhibit A (describing e-mail evidence Arlington agreed not to offer at trial)).