Another post becoming of an HL.
You say: "However, when you match those posters' conclusions (and those who recommended their posts) with their analysis and conclusions about PTSC related issues, it's by no means surprising that despite the obvious staring them in the face, the Big Red Barn has eluded them once again."
Now let's put this in On Topic context, with regard to the Markman. Something is staring you (and most here) in the face, yet it eludes.
Mikesmark mentioned it once in passing, but that's it.
So, now I do one last post to point out something I believe to be extremely obvious, and then you guys can put your usual negative spin on it. The following is MY opinion, and I believe on sound basis. And I realize that the jury trial has not even begun, so I'm speaking purely in regard to the Markman result AS CURRENTLY KNOWN and at "this point in the game" assuming the results can be a catalyst.
For the T3 to truly win the Markman, and by that I mean avoid the likelihood of being found to infringe SOMETHING in the MMP and having to pay SOME amount of money, they had to clearly "get their way" on every claim construction.
Can anyone point to a single construction where the T3 clearly won/"got their way"? Did they get their way on ALL of them?
Conversely, are there any where we "got our way" or extremely close to it?
BTW, right or wrong, IMO when the Judge chose not to construe because no further definition is needed beyond what is stated in the patent claim, I view that as a "win" for us. Those are the words WE chose to use in the patents, and words we could have probably opted to change in the amendment process in the USPTO reexams (when an opportunity may have presented itself) if there were a benefit. Those ARE our chosen words.
We only needed One.....and the more the merrier.
Which side remains at risk, and which side is at little risk PURELY BASED on what's currently known re: Markman results? I suggest T3 the former, and PTSC/TPL the latter.
FWIW,
SGE
