infinite
The reason for granting the consolidation in the first place was to alleviate the prejudicial effect of a predisposition on the part of the same judge. In theory, anything done in the Samsung case is not binding via precedent in the Nok case if tried seperately. An experienced observer can tell issues that are very close in the mind of the judge. Perhaps a different approach or different rendition by an expert could turn the tables on perceived close calls on technical issues. I also want to keep and maintain Judge Luchern on the bench and I do not want Nok seeking a recusal or disqualification based on either outcome of the Batts order which was a slap in his face. If the case goes to trial against both parties in consolidation, Judge Luchern will be presiding over the same evidence as presented by both respondents at the same time negating any claims of possible prejudice. Since Judge Luchern went against the opinion of the staff attorneys because of his awareness of a perceived problem for Nok, a severance will open the challenge process against the judge for a later hearing.
As a caveat, I have never practiced patent law and the advantage opinion is based on the opinions of those who have.
MO
loop
Market Data 
Markets 
