What I suspect is happening, which would explain the elapsed time, is that the jury is making a determination on each and every claim of each asserted patent as to whether each one either is infringed or not. They may be doing this piece meal as per a required process (as opposed to simply making a blanket decision), and in any case as a building block they may feel is necessary in order to calculate damages (assuming they have an attitude which differs from mine - mine being infringement is infringement whether it be infringement of a single claim or multiple). Then arguments about damages calculation, perhaps even trying to "weight" infringement of certain claims more or less than others. Then of course arguments about whether the infringement was willful or out of ignorance.
Hopefully Ron or someone can chime in re: the above and correct me as appropriate. But whether the piece meal decision approach is mandated or not, I could see the jury adopting this approach as suggested above - to better calculate damages.
Considering the probability of the above, the time being expended is perhaps more understandable. I just hope they don't overlook the "basics" when mired in the detailed process, e.g., 100+ (many high caliber) licensees, Moore's testimony, that demo, etc.
FWIW,
SGE
PS: Welcome back to the returning old-timers and to Long new posters!
