The only reason I looked into this was because in the appeal filing they mentioned three items, one of which was the summary judgement. In the summary judgment the only item ruled in favor of the defendant was its usage of non-infringement claims. This was upheld with case precedence citing 5% was enough to establish reasonable usage without infringing. This number rapidly decreases with it's expanded usage. <br /> <br /> This gets tricky as the court also held the fact usage can be extended past 12 weeks in the relation to non-infringement usage but didn't take the time to quantify it as the 5% was enough (AMRN expert testimony fuck up) to deem it as a reasonable usage.