InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[infinite_q]

Hi, Olddog,

Thanks for the comments. You are correct, the ALJ used the context of the claims language itself to impose a limitation on the term "apparatus" that appears in the preamble. There is no clear requirement that preamble claims be construed, as I understand the law, but if the ALJ decides a term needs construing then he can use the claims language itself, the specification, the prosecution history, or other extrinsic evidence to come up with his construction. The problem here is that he ignores so much of the intrinsic evidence in the patent itself in jumping to this conclusion that it makes no sense in the end.

And you are right that the ALJ seems to ignore much of Gitlin's testimony. IDCC makes that point along with the point that he ignores a lot of damning testimony from NOK's witnesses, too. He seemed to go into this with a predisposition to find no infringement, IMO, which is funny considering how much we all assumed he had been PO'd by NOK's shenanigans.

I did not copy the quotes, I had to type them manually. What a pain.

I have a BSEE, have had many years experience in electrical engineering, and have spent the last 10 years reading all kinds of stuff about 3G standards. Do I meet the definition of one skilled in the art as put forth by the experts in this trial? No. But I think that I come fairly close.