|
|
|
|
||
HJW Court - 29 Jan 2008 - my notesCourtroom almost full again – 4 ½ rows out of 6 in the gallery were just lawyers. Myself, Michael Cohen and Jeff Schreiner were there, as was Mike Farmwald, sitting with the R lawyers in the gallery. Reporting once the trial starts may get spotty as those of us that post may not get a seat on a given day. Topics discussed Witness Notice To minimize issue to witness, 5 days notice if possible, 3 day min. Issue of Geoff Tate vacation came up; seemed to me HJW will not require Tate to change plans. Jury Instructions Instruction 2: Patent Process Oveview Arguments were on whether to include an ‘unless found unenforceable” phrase per MM request, and whether to remove the mention of “confidential” per MM request w.r.t. process between patent examiner in PTO and patent applicant. Instruction 3: Summary of Contentions Arguments wree on inclusion of phrases related to a patent owner having the right to amend the claims over time if in written description – MM says keep out as amendment could be barred if amendment was an antitrust violation, and on whether the word ‘reasonable’ is attached to the word ‘royalty’. There was also argument of whether the ruling on MSJ 2 should be included in pre-evidence or post-evidence. This is the one that found that the JEDEC written rules did not create a duty to disclose. IMO Stone made a powerful argument that it had to be up-front, as the jury will have already decided the case in their minds by the end of the evidence. HJW also agreed to change the language to ‘by preponderance of the evidence’ vs ‘more likely true than not true’. Also, M has dropped their claim of negligent misrepresentation, and HJW dismissed the claim with prejudice, as reqested by R, after making a comment during the dialogue of “good choice”.
Instruction 4: Validity & Infringement of R Patents Arguments were on use of ‘variable’ vs ‘programmable’ for burst length, and once again whether there should be explicit mention that the jury in H Phase II found the patents valid and infringed, and as well if there should be mention that the H jury found that the written description covered the claims. Also whether the MM products would be detailed on the chart used. The chart will be in the juror notebooks, as will the jury instructions. HJW will issue revised jury instructions tonight. Glossary A lot of arguing here over pretty esoteric stuff. IMO was mostly prepositioning for claim constructions arguments in the DDR2 / DDR3 patent phase. MILs MILs will be dealt with at tomorrow’s CMC, as the rest of today is being taken up with reviewing the juror pool requests to be dismissed from duty for hardship, and HJW had to end by 3pm to get to a Dr. appt.
Regards |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
168016 | Re: HJW Court - 29 Jan 2008 - my notes | ScruffyNYC | 10 | 1/29/2008 6:01:53 PM |
168017 | Re: HJW Court - 29 Jan 2008 - my notes | nocomment | 25 | 1/29/2008 6:02:22 PM |
168021 | Re: HJW Court - 29 Jan 2008 - my notes | stratertele | 0 | 1/29/2008 6:15:21 PM |
168023 | Re: HJW Court - 29 Jan 2008 - my notes | forti1v | 4 | 1/29/2008 6:15:59 PM |
168024 | Re: HJW Court - 29 Jan 2008 - my notes | Grandeplease | 13 | 1/29/2008 6:19:26 PM |
168035 | Re: HJW Court - 29 Jan 2008 - my notes (longusa) | goose_eggs | 15 | 1/29/2008 6:55:55 PM |
168724 | Re: HJW Court... well, amidst rejoicing, here's my nightmare suggestion: | RambusMaximus | 2 | 1/30/2008 1:31:25 PM |