doni's Profile
doni's Posts
(January 20, 2015, 6:02 PM EST)
-" The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cast aside the Federal Circuit's long-standing rule that all district court claim construction rulings must be reviewed anew on appeal. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz is significant. "
There will be no appeal process for the civil claims construction results e.Digital vs. Google.....with regard to "The battle of experts over claim term meanings"
IMVHO...The IPR process seems to have over whelmed the civil procedures.....as a review process with its own set of circumstances regarding claims construction. The process carries a a definitive out come of patents being good or no good.....
sman, the question is .....what are your thoughts on the experts presentations during the IPR process?
IMVHO e.Digitals experts presented a very clear picture.
With that, we have no idea what forced the eventual settlement...the civil claims construction results favoring e.Digital , or the depositions of IPR experts that, IMVHO, favored e.Digital?
e.Digital had positive issues in its corner. As nasty as all things seem to be that is why no one can simply walk away.
doni
Even with a a positive civil claims construction ruling against Google there is no concise answer one way or the other....while other cases ramble on.
One has to simply wait for an answer...or move on.
doni
"then in August the settlement and license agreement information with Google was on a Pacer, then removed, and Edig never PR'd the settlement."
It was never on PACER, it was sited on the PTAB filings as an exhibit.
When the Civil case concluded, with a supposed settlement of some sort, the PTAB required a copy of the civil case settlement agreement. Google, apparently, filed a copy to the PTAB noted in its updated exhibit list in concluding the IPR.
Shortly after filing doc exhibit 1025 to the PTAB....like a few days, the IPR concluded where the PTAB case filings closed to public view.
Doc exhibit 1025 simply had the heading:
"1025 Confidential Settlement and License Agreement Between e.Digital Corporation and Google, Inc., as filed in e.Digital Corporation v. Dropcam, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:14-cv-04922. (Board and Parties Only)"
No one has read it except for the parties, PTAB board, and the civil case judge.
For the Civil case conclusion It was never required to be filed on PACER.
From there it has been a complete mystery.
e.Digital did not start the mystery...Google did, with its updated exhibit list.
e.Digitals IPR exhibit list never revealed it.
With that, it's hard to tell what e.Digital has in mind.... Where shortly after a development platform is announced and then come the new board members.
doni
" Patent monetization is now next to impossible. The big tech companies are effectively 'reverse patent trolls' stealing IP at will without any repurcussion."
To the point, they have in roads directly to the USPTO....e.g. Google and Michelle Lee....where she over sees the 3 judge panels that sit on the PTAB.
Get a deal with Google? lol....There is no beating that....The OBAMA regime set it up....and signed off on Michelle....and Congress killed us with AIA head by the OBAMA regime and allowed through by a Republican Congress..
'reverse patent trolls' is an understatement.
doni
Yes, there was other prior art issues to over come.
The way this worked out. In e.Digitals very first dissertation to the IPR petition, to be, or not to be instituted, they argued very thoroughly, over 40 pages, of other prior art issues challenged....and gave very little argument to the Miluzzo/Roberts issues... like 6 pages of vague. The prior art issues ventured where to base the IPR on being instituted or not being institute.
On their allowed , lets say, more formal response to the IPR, after it was decided to institute based on the above first dissertation. The PTAB then focused on the Miluzzo/Roberts issues for the formal IPR and paid no never mind to the previous prior art issues. With that, it seemed, to me anyway, e.Digital was being crafty in some fashion on being vague on Miluzzo/Roberts(MFST) issues.
Miluzzo/Roberts then became the main formal focus, where I read e.Digitals arguments along with the Nettle information a long time back.... It all seemed through and strongly argued.....
With all the back and fourth... the civil case settled and the IPR terminated on that civil settlement.
With that, I'm thoroughly ... Miluzzo--ed out....until something happens.
All the legal posturing is getting old... whatever is happening.
doni