Rambus (RMBS)

[smd1234]

Cal,
Thanks for your SJ reporting.
Here's the best I can do:

Sorry but I am wayyyyyyyy out of my area of expertise, so I will sum it up in simple terms as follows (with apologies if I'm being too simple):

As explaimed a little bit below***, Whyte entered various claim construction orders, his "Markman." Once that was completed he was able to determine and rule on issues of infringement for purposes of the summary judgment motions filed by RMBS and Hynix. That is all done now, but there are some infringement issues yet to be resolved, to be resolved in Jan. '06 trial. The trial of infringement issues will use those very same claim construction orders.

***
There are various key terms in the claims of each patent, and he "construed" those terms, i.e., determined their meaning, for purposes of the claim construction orders.

He used a certain "method" as he "construed" those terms, and the method was based on a series of rulings over the years by the CAFC.

This Phillips case involves the CAFC friggin' CHANGING the method.

Sooooooo we have an issue, a question pending, i.e., insofar as Hynix has asked Whyte to use this new method and reverse his own decisions on clain construction as to a very key word, DEVICE, we have to wait and see how he rules on the Hynix request. WHY IT IS SUCH A KEY TERM IS BEYOND MY EXPERTISE! SORRY.

=========
RE: the new method

couple months ago from Nic:

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/09/nystrom_v_trex_.html

This illustrates, per my post many months ago, that the Philips case has had profound influences in the patent arena, and has caused the CAFC to even reverse their opinions in a few occasions. This is why I was certain (and they followed true to form) that Hynix would ask Whyte to revisit some of the claim interpretations.

Even the CAFC is getting less friendly to patent owners. It is a tough arena.

Da Greek