RE:RE:RE:RE:summary judgementA small part of the story is that Citrix asked the California court for a Summary Judgement, probably with the hope that a CAFC appeal would set the whole process back another year or even the chance that B&H would have to ask the court for a re-examination of the citrix patents which would have set the whole process back five ot more years.
At the moment I doubt that both sides would want a Summary Judgement because every court ruling is an advantage (or disadvantage) for one side. The two sides may agree on case management (or scheduling) but most of everything else will be disputed. We can only hope that Fish & Richardson have a different strategy than GP did of delay, delay, delay. Perhaps the LOGM jury decision makes them think they can sway a jury. Considering that the LOGM CTO (Mr. Anka) admitted downloading the 01 product (IIT) but insisted that he did not reverse engineer it.
I have made this comment before; Our best hope is a Summary Judgement on infringement. A court ruling (using FRAND) on royalty and licensing and a jury verdict on wilful infringement.