You guys crack me up. Let's have a discussion about the remand/non-remand, which by the way, is not like the dilution issue even a little bit. A federal judge didn't ask if WDDD was prepared to dilute if they told them they had to in a court room.
So without getting too much into the actual facts and briefings, because I think those point to verbatim in the hearing slightly favoring WDDD in regard to RPI construction and disdain of some of the processes of the PTAB, let's talk about some key highlights:
* Judge panel that is favorable in terms of no purely anti-patent judges, also a panel that typically never writes briefings and almost always concurs with the briefing or dissents. Typically never the judges actually the primary decision makers in hearings.
* Judge panels ASKS WDDD if they are prepared to remand in the case that is the way the CAFC handles it, which is by far the easiest way. Push it off the PTAB, give them instructions on how to handle it.
* Judge panel SPECIFICALLY states WDDD is asking them to essentially set a small precedent by vacating a PTAB ruling, and acknowledges oil states. Essentially saying they have very little intention to make any sort of real decision by vacating if they don't have to.
* Even if the panel sends it back to CAFC with specific instructions, there is no guarantee that the PTAB doesn't go out of its way to bring up other topics.
------------------------
While I think the facts of the case FAVOR WDDD, I am skeptical to say that them going out of their way to vacate is PROBABLE.
So let's look at other timelines in case remand is the decision.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
