RE:Time for some cautious optimismFor sure.
Though this lawsuit is a crapshoot that can lean either way - it's game on - and the potential is remarkably substantial.
dyodd
knowsjack
Newby1 wrote: Remember, a "Markman Hearing" (or Construction Hearing) is a hearing in which a judge determines the meaning of disputed words in a patent infringement lawsuit. The hearing considers the literal language of the claim, the patent specifications, and the prosecution history. It defines terms in the context of the whole patent such that a jury can understand. There were 7 terms in dispute. 1. Judge agreed that "controller different than the host". 2. Judge agreed "host" to mean "computer (including hardware and software) that has information or applications." 3. Was no biggie - Judge decided "no construction necessary". 4. Deferred to Air Watch. 5. "party that issues certificates" (sans, "third party"). 6. Both parties agreed. 7. "Because I do not think the jury will have any problem understanding this term, I conclude no construction is necessary". With a jury trial, you never know how it will turn out. Lots of payouts if Route 1 does win. Route 1's law firm originally on contingency. Now Bench Walk Advisors hoping for a big payout at the end of the day. In the beginning, T.B. stated that Route 1's earnings expected to be enough to carry the legal costs. Seems he has eliminated the risk of self-financing. Also uses a little-known accounting loophole that affects the balance sheets of publicly traded companies. Best of luck to all.