RE: RE: RE: Time to Regroup?...No Pity from ME you folks are all correct in assessments. The company will need to take a soul searching look at what it costs to keep the doors open and the company listed on the tsx which will mean a dramatic rev iew of their operating budget and staffing. I am quite sure they will be discussing everything to the Board of Directors in the week ahead.
And you are also correct in the fact that the LOMN team did a great job to protect their product from an infringement ruling- there was obviously something in the case presentation that resounded strongly with the jury to find their verdict. The only question I have in this is whether that information was blatantly contrary to the claims construction provided by the CAFC. This would be a serious matter because if the expert witness was able to leave the impression that LOGM could not have infringed because of the distributed computing issue, it may have influenced their decision on non-infringement.
Maybe it all came down to the last two expert witnesses on the stand- the last information presented is what stuck with a jury that had been bombarded with testimony for several days, but in the end weighted the most recent testimony in their minds as the most influential. If and I say if because I was not in the courtroom, Dr. Bhattacharjee was able to seed into the minds of the juror, that because LOGM used distributed computing in multiple languages opposed to a LOCATION SERVER COMPUTER as the big difference between the two technologies, he would have contravened the claims construction. And the final voice from 01 expert was Ganger and his expertise dealt with the validity of the patent more than the distributed computing issue, the jury may have come to the conclusion a valid patent to satisfy the Ganger expertise, but no infringement because Logm system was fundamentally different that 01. I was not there so this is supposition on my part to justify the verdict of the jury.
I know the case very well and believe the jury was incorrect in their decision, it they failed to understand how software programs work together to, regardless of where they are located or in whih languages they are written to create a result, which is this case is the connection between a remote and personal computer. This was the expertise of Dr. Grimshaw and it may have been a tactical error to bring Ganger to the stand in rebuttal and not Dr. Grimshaw if you get my drift. I felt through the whole trial the most important witness was in fact Dr. B as he was the whole basis of the case built by LOGM. The fact that Hilton may have over ruled a motion to strike the improper claim construction comments of DR. B meant that those comments were accepted into the record as fact for the jury to consider. If I were a non-technical person on a jury and were again presented with this argument of the difference between the products as a single computer vs complex distributed computing, I likely would have arrived at the same conclusion.
The CAFC were very clear in their case a year ago and their decision. If this were once again put in front of them, and it was obvious that the court allowed basically inadmissable evidence to the jury, they would order a retrial. Problem is friends this is a lifetime away into the future.