RE:RE:Skippen living up to his reputation No Whaler, but here is what seramina had posted re arguments:
Apple's position:
a. Wilan patent did not disclose complex multipler - which is the key to the invention
b. Sequencing must follow specific order of encoding, randomizng, modulating, spreading, decoding, etc.etc.
c. Lower court screwed up reversing jury decision on patent validity (contrary to the USPTO)
The Wilan legal team explained the same thing a few times:
d. Complex multiplier is clearly explained as one of the embodiments of the invention in Figure 8.
e. Complex multiplier was presented to the jury and also confirmed by both experts that it was the key to the Wilan OFDM invention (can't do noise cancellation without complex numbers)
f. Claim construction is consistent with Wilan arguments - judge did not think it was conveyed clearly to the jury nor that the jury got it - want to send it back/Can't do that your Honour under the Court rules said Apple legal team
In short, yes your Honour Apple iPhone runs on Wilan OFDM engine, but Wilan patent is poorly written and McKool Smith screwed up during the trial.So Apple legal team is using the opportunity, messing around with the wording and arguing that iPhone is not strictly following what the Wilan patent is teaching - therefore Apple is not infringing! Prior art disclosed complex multipler - hence Wilan patent is invalid (although he meant it - but did not say it).