I don't need to ask them anything. I also did not ask you anything even tho you posed your reply as tho I did. I did not. After seeing years of the attitude and arrongance you have taken with ANY and ALL here who did not agree with you or see things your way, I would never ask you anything, because of that years long observation. When I think of all the hundreds of times you've admonished ppl and DIRECTED, almost ORDERED them to go back and read what you had said previously about any number of subjects, as if, no, not as if but definitively as tho you considered yourself THE authority on the subject. You have told many posters off here who refused to accept your opinions and that is many many times. A perfect example is right here right now. I did not, as you stated, ask you any questions and in fact I did not even address you. What I DID do was present some clear cut facts and conclusions. I challenged anyone to show the facts were incorrect. I challenged anyone to dispute my facts and conclusions by showing any law, court or judge that has categorically said that IPR positive decisions were instrumental in a trial finding. That is the correct thing to look for. That is the ONLY way to determine if the positive ipr decisions are important to infringement trial outcomes. Very simple and indisputable is looking in that direction. Instead of dealing with those appropriate places to look (law, precedence, judge opinion) and acknowledging the critical thinking, you just dismiss in your cranky way, as you so often do.
At this juncture I was about to say that all above said, I would take a quick look at the cases you noted but on a 2nd look I noticed you said ask the defendants... Hate to break it to you but defendants do make the law, or precedence or the opinions of judges, not to mention the final judgment they make in a trial outcome. The fact of the matter is, as I noted in my previous post, people, litigants, whoever, may come to think that past ipr decisions (only when it's a positive outcome for patent owners) lend weight and validity to a given patent, but that is not what matters because they are not the ones to rule on trial outcome. If you can't see and acknowledge that, you're missing a big thing.
My challenge and one that makes light years more pragmatic sense than confering with trial defendants, was simply simply show where a judge has ruled on a case based on or at least based partly on, positive outcome ipr decisions. Arguing with that challenge is futile.
You may now go back to direction ppl what to think and to always make sure they better go back and read your infallible words on some given subject. Hundreds of times that's exactly what you have DIRECTED peeps to do as though your posts are the end all be all final word on the subject.
Afaic, anyone who finds fault with looking for case law or precedence or the opinion of patent law judges, is on the wrong track.
All my commentary is to be considered as my personal opinions, to which I am entitled. And there is no proof of said opinions unless I offer it in the comments.
