RE:Some GOOD.....mostly BAD...BYE BYE $$$$There is two parts to the induced infringement question and the judge has decided to pass the decision to the jury rather than make a ruling in the same way she has denied 01`s motion for SJ on infringment. B&H must convince the jury that Citrix had prior knowledge and also infringes.
The second part is whether Citrix tried to side step the patent by having the customer do part of the work of connecting and opening up the possiblity of their customers being co-infringers.
The judge also allows Citrix to argue prior art which goes against the whole purpose of an inter partes re-examination rather than an ex parte re-examination but with the obvious option of a CAFC appeal if we lose because the judge erred but she knew a CAFC appeal would be asked for anyways.