InvestorsHub Logo

woops

09/11/12 2:37 PM

#57932 RE: sirhaggus #57929

sir haggus,

where is the patent discussion about auto-switching -other than the use of the word auto-switching? do documents exist in the patent not made available to the public?

litton51

09/11/12 2:47 PM

#57934 RE: sirhaggus #57929

By your explanation, a Markman has no value going into a trial for infringement. Rather, per your suggestion, the jury can kinda sorta wanta give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt ... if it feels like it.

I reject this explanation. From what I've read, Markmans make or break a patent. Otherwise, who would bother?

HighRider

09/11/12 2:49 PM

#57935 RE: sirhaggus #57929

That really is a good sign. The patent should stand on it's own if at all possible. I didn't understand why tmob was so intent on deposing him at this juncture anyway. The expert is considered extrinsic, just as a dictionary would be. The patent terms and meanings should trump any other source, if possible. So if the judge is relying on the patent, he will be able to determine the meaning of the terms within the context of how they were written. I don't find this an exceedingly hard patent to understand, let's hope the judge sees it that way also.

Tmob's attempt was to quarantine the terms, use extrinsic evidence to support their argument, so they could redefine the patent terms, thus making the patent invalid or at least not infringed upon.