while i think it may be dispositive to these defendants if the judge rules for edig on 1 & 2...i don't recall edig ever stating that...in fact i thought it read they want a ruling for plain meaning or their submitted constructions for remaining terms....my guess would be so they have rulings for future filings....to me it makes sense that our edig wants all constructions for further filings.....especially after all this effort.
also any thought about high/low agreements that may have been in place since before the MH.???
Re: tall drink of water....my guess is she is the clean up atty. licensed 1 year...she would be the perfect choice to follow the settlement documents/dismissals/ and answer promptly any questions from the court, magistrate or law clerks re: finalizing the case..
imo i don't think they need her for a trial, she could always work in the background w/o being admitted (as in the MH), but makes sense to be on the case when almost all other attys go on to round 3.......soon i guess....also if our edig DM are paying our colorado attys by the hour (the col lawfirm is not on the patent assignment) ..to me it would also make sense to pull them off and put in house on case if ready to go on to next filing....??? just an opinion
