The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, U.S. District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the following Motions:
1. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Certain Factual Findings in the Court's Opinion of October 28, 2008 (d/e 745) (d/e 815) (Motion 815);
2. Plaintiff GSI Group, Inc.'s Motion for Clarification Regarding Damages for Sukup's Infringement of GSI's U.S. Patent No. 5,400,525 (d/e 825) (Motion 825);
3. Defendant's Combined (1) Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Opinion (d/e 745) Denying Summary Judgment for Sukup Regarding Counts IV, VI, and VII; in the Alternative, (2) Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Opinion (d/e 806) Denying Sukup's Motion in Limine to Exclude Hearsay Testimony Concerning Wheeler Grain; or in the Alternative, (3) Request for a Limiting Instruction Regarding Wheeler Grain and Memorandum in Support (d/e 834) (Motion 834);
4. Defendant's Motion and Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Opinion (d/e 806) Allowing GSI's Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence of Sales of All Tower Dryers other than the "Zimmerman" Brand (d/e 711) (d/e 835) (Motion 835);
5. Sukup's Motion for Clarification of the Court's Inequitable Conduct Holding and of the Opinion Regarding GSI's Rotor Assembly Patents (d/e 836) (Motion 836);
6. Sukup's Motion for Reconsideration of the Opinion Finding the '271 Patent Valid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (d/e 837) (Motion 837); and
7. Sukup's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Claim Construction of U.S. Patent No. 5,135,271 (d/e 99) (Motion 838).
For the reasons set forth below: Motion 815 is ALLOWED in part; Motion 825 is ALLOWED in part; Motion 834 is DENIED; Motion 835 is DENIED; Motion 836 is ALLOWED in part; Motion 837 is DENIED; and Motion 838 is DENIED.
The Court will address the Motions in the order that they were filed. Generally, the parties seek reconsideration of a summary judgment Opinion or a decision on a motion in limine. A motion to reconsider will be granted if there has been a mistake of law or fact, or new evidence has been discovered that is material and could not have been discovered previously. Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). The parties also seek clarification of various parts of Orders and Opinions.
Sukup asks the Court to modify five findings of undisputed facts in this Court's Opinion entered October 28, 2008 (d/e 745) (Opinion 745). The parties agree that the Court erred in the fifth finding listed in Motion 815. The Court hereby modifies that finding to state that: the Sukup Spec Sheet stated that each Sukup tower grain dryer had a larger Heat Holding Capacity, all but three had a larger Cool Holding Capacity, and all but one had a larger Total Holding Capacity than a comparable GSI dryer of the same size. Sukup also asks the Court to reconsider its findings that Sukup's Brochure disclaimer was literally false because the disclaimer falsely stated that the tower dryer specifications in the Brochure were based on field results and computer simulations. Opinion 745, at 16. Sukup now presents evidence that creates an issue of fact regarding the falsity of the Brochure disclaimer. Sukup further correctly states that GSI did not assert this particular factual issue in support of its request for summary judgment. Because GSI did not directly raise the issue, Sukup was not required to address the issue in its response to GSI's summary judgment motion. See Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (reconsideration appropriate when Court made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties). The Court, therefore, will consider the new evidence. When viewed most favorably ...