Yes, that's why I said "virtually" no discussion. However, Judge Grewal mentioned claims construction only in the context of the appeal that could have been taken, whereas, to my way of thinking, it could have been portrayed as a pivotal distinction that exists only in our particular case. This would have been a significant, specific point that could have been "married" to the general approach of distinguishing Kessler on "federal district court versus ITC" that Judge Grewal correctly used IMO.
Nevertheless, as I've already said, Judge Grewal is a very smart guy, no doubt much smarter than am I, and, in a general sense, he also has the "inside perspective" on the CA federal court that gives him a distinct advantage. I'm certainly not criticizing or "second guessing" him. As I've also said many times over the years, my opinion and a dollar bill might get you a cup of coffee in a cheap enough diner, so what "I think" makes absolutely zero difference.
The fact of the matter is that Judge Grewal has opined in our favor once again and its substance is what it is, in addition to now being in the hands of the presiding federal district judge.
