A win/win? At least that's what I'm thinking (hoping). Maybe both sides took a look at the big picture—what they stood to gain or lose by fighting this case to the bitter end vs. what both might gain by working together, combining EDIG's innovative technologies with Google's ability to apply those innovations (maybe even MicroSignet and Synap?) in a comprehensive package to power the IoT. Yes, I know the current agreement only relates to Nunchi, and even with that we don't know the details.

Well, anyhow, it's fun to imagine the possibilities. More fun than what I was imagining a week ago.

GLTA. And thanks to all for making this such an interesting, informative, and fun place. Without this board I would have given up on the stock years ago.

Yes, I agree. It's painfully slow. The whole IPR process seems redundant and unnecessary. It re-does both the original patent approval process and the Claim Construction in a way that devalues both and creates a sort of "double jeopardy" for patent holders. Unfair? Yes. But here we are. GLTA.

"The Court will therefore adopt a modified version of both parties’ proposed constructions, as follows:“an arrangement of persons and/or operations in a series of ordered levels.” / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Case 3:14-cv-04922-JST Document 78 Filed 11/30/15 Page 7 of 13 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States District Court Northern District of California ."

BRI=Broadest Reasonable Interpretation

I believe that's what we got from the Claims Construction—a broad and reasonable interpretation. Interestingly, Dropcam argued for a narrower interpretaion that would have applied the patent only in much more limited circumstances while EDIG argued for the broader meaning of social template which would allow it to be more widely applicable. Perhaps Edig's proposed construction was unreasonably broad, and Dropcam's unreasonably narrow. In any case, the judge seems to have come down in the middle with a construction that gives each party some but not all of what they wanted.

Will this satisfy the PTAB? I don't know, but am hopeful. A broader construction would make the claim more widely applicable, but could make it more vulnerable to Prior Art considerations. And a broader reading might be appealed as "unreasonable" for the very reasons such a reading was rejected in our Claims Construction.

In any case, I remain hopeful.

Looks good. Read it here.

Like some others, I'm glad to have an opportunity to participate in the SHM via computer. It should be an interesting experience, especially if we go into it with a positive Dropcam Markman and an a strong 10Q in August.

And with some of the money they'll save by doing the meeting online, maybe they could put together a high quality professionally done video, maybe only 5 or 10 minutes, showing clearly and precisely how MicroSignet and Nunchi can work together to enable and secure the IOT. This could show the patents in action, stressing their uniqueness as well as their practical benefits for licensees and consumers. Besides being good entertainment for us shareholders, it would be something the company could in use their litigation and marketing efforts. Maybe we could even do some business helping prospective clients implement our technologies in their products, for a fee of course.

Thanks, Sman. After reading this a few times, I think I'm starting to "get it." I'll try to clarify and summarize. I find it encouraging.
In order to file for the IPR Micron had to submit alternative claim language for the patent. They chose broad language, which is generally considered a good thing. But the language cannot be so broad that it is indefinite. That is like just tossing out a very wide net and saying that everything it snags, whether fish or old tires, is covered. Micron's proposed rewording doesn't address the unique contribution of '108 Claim 1 and is therefore indefinite. Fortunately, the Markman gave us a construction that is as broad as is reasonable while still being definite in spelling out what is unique and valuable about the patent.