Just for clarification...
Construction Claims #1 and #2 are the only claims "dispositive" to the case...
In other words, the ruling on those 2 claims will "decide the outcome" of the Markman Hearing......whether it be in the favor of e.Digital or the defendants..
If the judge rules in favor of e.Digital on construction claims #1 and #2, then it will mean that we have WON the Markman Hearing.
If e.Digital WINS the Markman hearing, the defendants will then file a motion (throw a stick at it) to have her rule as well on construction claims #3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8.
Duane Morris would have no motivation to this themselves inasmuch as they ALREADY WON the "dispositive" claims #1 and #2.
Thus, the genesis of the theory that the "longer the ruling takes", the higher the propensity for the ruling going in e.Digital's favor..
The judge already knows that if she rules in e.Digital's favor, the defendants will probably file a motion for a ruling on the other 6.
Therefore, there "could" be an argument made that the judge may be reviweing those 6 construction claims as well in preparation for such a filing....and that in itself could prolong her Markman Ruling.
I hope this help to clear things up...
John/jtdiii
