rosen
based on your earlier comments the decision will be Monday at the latest. do you still believe that, or have the patterns changed?
you say
"2) the writing is on the wall, when determining the scope of
a patent with a very narrow application, judge jones would not
require six months of deliberation, rather a broader scope would
require the research into each defendant's infringement and
which defendant's will be dismissed or included in a potential markman hearing,..."
A Markman hearing is not about infringement, just claim interpretation. The Federal Circuit (the appeal court which hears all patent appeals) has repeatedly said 1) interpret the claims without regard to the accused device; 2) then see if the accused device infringes. The first is a matter of law decided by the judge in a MArkman hearing, the second a matter of fact decide by a jury. ONLY THE FIRST IS DONE IN A MARKMAN HEARING
You also said
"I have researched many Jones cases and her pattern of decision
making and timing of her docket entries"
She has never had a published case in which a Markman hearing was held. In fact, she has very few patent decisions published, and these had no Markman hearing (before they became part of the patent practice). I have also researched her dockets in cases. I looked at other civil cases to find a pattern. There is none. Which cases did you look at? I will galdly get those dockets and post them so everyone can share in the facts, not just conclusions. The cases I looked at include:
96cv5787 Novo Nordisk of NA, et al v. Eli Lilly and Co.
96cv09506 Novo Nordisk A/S, et al v. Becton Dickinson
92cv5461 Matsushita v. Loral Corporation, et al
96cv7345 Bijan Designer For v. Katzman
91cv1594 P.C. Films Corp. v. Turner Entertainment, et al
96cv3163 The Brandner Corp., et al v. V-Formation, Inc., et al
These were cases in which she at least had some input into the docket. They tended to be related to Intellectual property of some sort.
Please let us know what cases you are looking at. |
