For a non bias consideration the judge can call on the community if need be.
Does he need to in order to decide the verbiage considerations for plaintiff vs defendant during claims construction?
There is a familiarity between the Markman case and this case.
For Markman case the word was "Inventory"........for our case it's "RAM"......or random access memory.
For the Westview favorable decision on what the meaning of inventory was....he basically noted that for Markman the meaning meant..in short words.... a much more sophisticated system process of tracking, where, for Westview "inventory" had a less sophicated process....where in that, there is no infringement.
This is exactly what the defendants are trying to do in this case.....they are trying to implement verbiage having a consideration that e.Digital does not utilize RAM resource thereby having a much more sophisticated method, where, we the defendants, do implement RAM resource and are not as sophisticated a process, in that, we are not infringing.
This is one of the major contentions.
What is different for us compared to the Markman case.....a judge will not ultimately decide the case by injecting an after jury claims construction consideration.
Was Markman short changed their due process? After all, "claims construction" does not fully determine a case....however, it did for Westview.
I guess we now have the horse in front of the cart.
doni
