|
|
|
|
||
Re: Danger! UXB🧨💥"It’s possible that the CAFC is going to AFFIRM the invalidations despite Prost’s previous rhetoric. If Prost fails to remand the invalidation issues back to the PTAB an UXB will be sitting outside KL’s palace doors. That’s why this case is taking so long for the CAFC to adjudicate." Chip, Like many here, I am uncomfortable with the inexplicably long wait for closure on the Rule 36 decision, but I find the elements of your post regarding affirmation of the PTAB rulings a stretch. Moore, as a MIT-trained EE, is eminently qualified to read and understand the PTAB decisions, the patents, and prior art, and she described the PTAB review as incomprehensible, or something of the sort. I think it would be difficult, though not impossible, for the two other members of the panel to override her energetic dismissal of the PTAB review. I think she drop-kicked it back to Dogpatch and part of the intention of a rule 36 was to see that VHC prevailed in the race to finality. Instead, I think Lee's analysis of the shortcomings of the manner of determination of interest accrual may have hit a nerve and that is what is being addressed. Of course, I could be wrong. Live long and prosper. Kilroy |
return to message board, top of board |