"It is also clear that claim construction is not "final" when completed by the district court, but is "final" only when the Federal Circuit provides its construction on appeal."
Seems an orderly issue to me, if you view it with that prospective..."orderly" ....IMO, if there's to be a "final" review by a higher authority, so be it. I'm not getting hung up on words of "final" having an opinion that district courts are always wrong. Defendants and plaintiffs know where they stand after the district court has weighed in...it's up to them to pursue further if they feel strongly of their considerations.
For the case being made, e.Digital vs. the Colorado 16.... RE: Claims Construction .....IMO, it's not that, for the most part, the claims of the patent are in question for scrutiny , it's what the defendants consider to append to the fundamental claims of the patents that a judge must pay close attention to.
e.Digital does not change much of anything with regard to its claims construction considerations. The only issue to consider is the terminology that e.Digital(Norris) utilized for the meaning of a storage element.
IMO, it's either yes, or no as to changing the fundamental claims.
How strong can an appeal be (prior to trial or post trial) that initiates considerable change to the fundamental issues of a patent?
I don' t care if there's to be an appeal, prior or post trial, I'm just getting weary of all the commentary that reside within the legal profession.
I wonder where DM's considerations are on this subject?
doni
