Calypso's brief was very well written. Tmob and the judge both mixed up the Calypso patent issued in 2004 with the one issued 5 years later, then tried to say there was prior art, even though it didn't negate Calypso's patent. The question the judge asked, if signal strength was in the Aho patent and Tmobs attorney tried to use Calypso's expert as justification for his point, for which he got reamed out. He finally submitted that signal strength was not in the Aho patent. I think the judges will see the inadequacies and misrepresentations. I don't recall a specific instance of Juren being taken to task, only one situation where the judge corrected Juren about something Tmob said. I would not exclude the Doctrine of Equivalents. If you go through the district judges Recommendation you see various points at which he could have ruled more favorably for Calypso, but for some unknown reason didn't.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
