Issues to be decided:
I am sorry but the quote by someone that these judges are against or do not normally set precedent - is really not 100 percent accurate about 40 percent in recent history has set precedent - because of the issue with the PTAB 97& RATE OF KILLING patents
-
1- As chief Justice Prost said, Why is the issue "CONTROL:- This bar of Control is too high the issue of control is actually much less - its having privy, it is having input, it is about discussion between the parties and party B taking its queue frm party A - this was brought up by the court -
I believe this is how it will go -
1- They will say that Improper (due to the PTABs own exact words in the opinion) unduly put thr burdens of proff on WORLDS
2- I believe they will say that the matter of the contract is key in that it should beyond a minimum that there was at least shown that there should have allowed discovery and not just accept the notice of RPI signed by the attorneys as proof - evidence to the PTAB
3- I believe they will because of wifi one and oil states will now set a guidance on the 12 month rule stating that even though the guidance manual for the USPTO says 12 months and that the USPTO head can adjust that at will, they will say that there needs to be a clear line, 12 months plus holiday, act of god, weeksends etc, but not months.
4- They will split the patents saying the 3 not made party to the CFAC will be left null and rule on the 3 listed - this was an issue that the attorney should have handled better.
5- They will address the fact that a board member was put on the board on bungie to THIS IS IMPORTANT - To be the go between - between the parties and if minutes or recordings or texts or emails were allowed to be gotten during discovery it would have shown that.
6- They will rule that bungie did not provide evidence to balance out the contract and that contrary to bungies argument that it is neutral evidence they will rule that bungie had the chance AND - AND that the PTAB SHOULD HAVE ASKED if there was.
7- They will remand with guidence to rule on the 3 patents before the CFAC at a minimum or if they find bungie was RPI then all 6 because would valid as it would not get to the PTAB and it would not have gotten tot he cafc
8 They will SPECIFICALLY send this back with judgment in favor so as to send this NON artical III AGENCY notice that the CAFC will be ruling in favor if they do not (the ptab) follow there own rules as laid out in the procedure / guidelines that everyone is supposed to know to properly file.
THE CAFC DOES NOT want this kind of crap to keep being on the docket- this agency if you look at the docket for the CAFC if more then 65% of their docket, they need to start sending messages that the CAFC has the power not the agency.
9 Which brings me to 9 - they will rule agqinst us on the matter of did the PTAB have jurisdiction - i believe that - but - they will say that they MUST follow the guidelines and AND AND... must allow discovery - especially when the minimum of evidence under contract law is found or known -
At some point the CAFC WILL HAVE TO RULE MAYBE OUR CASE MAYBE NOT - that discovery for the most basic of things - contracts, an allowance to at the PTAB allow for examination at the PTAB or by deposition to ask questions at the least.
JMO
go re listen to the judges again the recording is still on the CAFC site.
