RE:Oral vs written arguments|My honest take is that we are OK on claims construction - Just because Lamkin states you can't properly use a cell phone without these patents doesn't mean its true but I'm assuming the court docs explain and back up this assertion with facts and expert testimony.
However, we weren't convincing on damages. Unless there is some other way to put a value on the patents in the court documents, going by the 3 past settlement agreements didn't seem to cut it with the judges. I was very surprised Lampkin didn't have a convincing argument against the 'Chaff argument'. I think we either get a much lower award than all of us were hoping for or we have another trial on damages - I thought the basic message from the judges was that if we can't resolve this argument, we'll be forced to have another trial
Chi