Greenshift Corporation (GERS)

[mitoo]

its only 11pm.
am reading the motion, again.
going from 858 to 231 to 516 is confusing but:
what i understand them doing is wanting the newly issued patent language to clarify language in the other patent(s) for claim construction purposes.
my problem is that the need for clarification suggests infringement and damages at (any) trail may not be as cut and dried as i previously thought. if it isnt clearly stated now, where does that leave us?