Seems to me that the judge gave "no indication" that she wanted briefs as to convince her she was wrong. If I remember correctly she was giving the parties 30 days to try and figure out on their own how they wanted to proceed given the information she provided about the direction she was heading...evidenced by the company's 8K stating the judges determination of a more narrow view.
Could be she's trying to get everyone to settle, if there there are no settlements and DM is still feels strongly about what we have, the only direction I can see is DM saying they want to continue, the defense asking for summary judgment which is granted then an appeal is filed.
OR
She does not grant summary judgment, the case has to go to trial the jury is given "only the view of the patents the judge came up with during MH" then we appeal based on the limited views of the judge from the MH.
If this is true, seems like it would be quicker and cheaper for DM if she granted the summary judgment and we could go straight to the appeal, although there may be some advantage from winning other points at trial prior to appealing the rest.
Or am I missing something?
Coyote
