my3sons: I believe this exchange at the beginning of the questioning of IDCC's expert by the respondent's attorney, answers your question about the Quick patent;
14 Q Now, you're aware, are you, that Quick was not
15 considered by the patent office during prosecution of the
15 applications for the '966 and '847 patents; right?
17 A I am aware of this, sir.
13 Q And Quick also was not considered by the judges
19 in the prior actions, the 613 and 800 actions; right?
29 A That was ——that is my understanding, sir.
21 Q So Quick is new prior art in this 868
22 proceeding; correct?
23 A It's a new asserted prior art, sir.
Without going into the technical aspects of the Q & A, I believe IDCC's expert held up well against the questioning. The respondent's attorney wanted simple yes and no answers, which the expert often refused to give. Instead he would give a more detailed explanation to support his opinion. You could almost sense the attorney's frustration in trying to get the answer that was wanted.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
