Zecotek Photonics Inc ZMSPF

RE:May 28 Motion for Reconsideration of Claim Construction

[isame]

You write "don't know what this means" .  

It does NOT mean that the defendants are appealing or protesting  the Markman ruling as it stands: 

"Defendants respectfully request that this Court reconsider its May 13, 2014 claim
construction ruling (Doc. #232) for the limited purpose of ruling upon an issue that was fully
briefed and argued by the parties but not addressed by the Court – namely, the issue of whether
the named inventors of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,132,060 (the “’060 patent”),
expressly disclaimed from the scope of their patent claims scintillation crystals grown from a
stoichiometric melt. In making this request, Defendants do not seek to reargue the issue or argue against an adverse ruling; rather, they ask only that the Court decide a material issue that was presented but not adjudicated."

The defense is still stiiring up the same porridge:  asking the court to rule if a certian initial  mixture that is "stochiometric"  is in violation of the patent.    In the end, as I understand the issue, this won't make any difference, since the argument is whether the final substance, that is the crystal is in violation.  And the judge may or may not rule on this specific request.