Let me get this straight. TM is arguing:
1. We did not infringe CLYW's patent.
2. If we did, their patent is not enforceable.
3. If the patent is enforceable, the intrinsic evidence is on out side.
4. If the intrinsic evidence is not on our side, the extrinsic evidence is on our side.
5. If the extrinsic evidence is on our side, the claims of the parent are too vague.
6. If the claims of the patent are not too vague, the wording of the patent is unenforceable.
7. If the wording of the patent is not too vague, the terms are too vague.
8. If the terms are not too vague, there was never an agreement between TM and CLYW to allow CLYW to jointly market this technology and our patent was developed independently.
9. If there was an agreement to market the patent jointly, the patent is too old to be enforceable now.
10. TM never made any money from the technology.
11. If the patent is enforceable now, the patent itself has no value.
12. TM is not in the telecomm business.
13. TM does not market telecomm services.
14. CLYW does not have a patent.
15. You have bad breath and your mother wears combat boots. And your sister is ugly.
