TO DENY STANDING TO A CASE THAT CLEARLY, METHODICALLY, AND WITH IRREFUTABLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF SHOWS CATASTROPHIC JUDGEMENTAL ERROR, CULPABLE MISTAKE AND VERY LIKELY FRAUD ON THE COURT IS LIKE DENYING STANDING TO ESCULPATORY EVIDENCE AND WATCHING AN INNOCENT MAN HANGED "FOR LACK OF STANDING"
DU HAS STANDING HERSELF LEAVE ALONE EPADI -SHE COULD HAVE AT LEAST ASKED IN PUBLIC FORUM HIKMA AND HEINECKE TO EXPLAIN THEIR STATISTICAL ASSERTIONS THEIR DISTORTIONS OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION, AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TABLE LEGEND--NO, INSTEAD JUDGE DU TOOK THE EASY PATH: DENY DENY DENY, COVER UP THE ERROR, AND THEN OBSTRUCT THE CORRECTION O AN INJUSTICE--WORDS FAIL ME! THIS IS THE MOST REPREHENSIBLE ACT OF VENALITY AND MORAL COWARDICE EVER COMMITTED IN THE ANNALS OF PATENT LAW.
THE MISTAKE IS SO OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS NO ONE WANTS TO ADDRESS IT. THE FINAL STRAW STRAW IN THIS IMBECILE JUDGEMENT IS THAT SHE STATES PARENTHETICALLY THAT AFTER A YEAR REVERSAL WOULD INCONVENIENCE THE DEFENDANTS UNFAIRLY IF SHE REVERSED HER DECISION.
I HAVE SO LITTLE FAITH IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. CAFC WILL LIKELY RUBBER STAMP THE SAME NONSENSE THAT JUDGE DU JUST ENACTED USING TEH RULE 36 AS PER DYK ET AL LAST TIME. THE SCOTUS IS THE LAST HARBOR OF REFUGE--BUT DON'T COUNT ON THAT EITHER...OMNES TURCI
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
