RE: more misleading statements LOGMEIN The use of the word "undisputed" is crucial. That is telling the court that those alleged facts are accepted by 01. In which case it then becomes only a question of whether, taking into account these agreed facts, breaches have occurred.
It would be extremely foolhardy to go on record making such a statement if there was not some basis for it. They could easily have used the word "indisputably" which does not imply that 01 acknowledges the veracity of it.
I know that much has been said here about LOGM's lawyer "lying" to Hilton at the previous hearing. That is probably inaccurate- he will say that he made a reasonable interpretive deduction based on his assessment of the history and this will be accepted by the court. So do not hold your breath waiting for any "admonishment"- Hilton will deal with the case de novo whilst taking into consideration the CAFC decision etc.
So, it will be very interesting to read 01's reply brief to see what they say about the "undisputed facts"