WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. Intel Corporation

Filing 429

ORDER denying 424 MOTION for Reconsideration re: 405 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 9/23/2009. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------W IS C O N S IN ALUMNI RESEARCH F O U N D A T IO N , ORDER Plaintiff, 0 8 - cv -7 8 - b b c v. IN T EL CORPORATION, D efendan t. --------------------------------------------In an order entered September 17, 2009, I decided the parties' cross motions for partial summary judgment. I denied defendant Intel Corporation's motion for summary judgm ent on its counterclaim that plaintiff Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation's United S tates Patent Number 5,781,752 is invalid as anticipated by four "memory reference tagging" techniques disclosed in United States Patent Number 5,619,662. In deciding that m atter, I construed the term "prediction" to require a value capable of ongoing change and con cluded that none of the four techniques identified disclose a "prediction." Now before the court is defendant's motion for reconsideration. Defendant contends that, although plaintiff had not moved for summary judgment, the court essentially gave it

1

such relief by ruling that the techniques disclosed in the `662 patent do not anticipate the patent. Defendant adds that it has an expert who has described how some of the memory referen ce techniques disclose "intelligent learning," which could disclose a "prediction" capab le of ongoing change. In addition, the expert describes "inherent" disclosure of a "prediction" capable of ongoing change. T o be clear, the court has not granted summary judgment to plaintiff on defendant's anticipation counterclaims. Although it would be futile for defendant to attempt to prove up anticipation on the theories it presented at summary judgment, it may present its "in telligen t learning" and "inherency" theories to the jury. reconsideration, dkt. #424, is DENIED as unnecessary. E n tered this 23d day of September, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge Defendant's motion for

2