grc
3 answers
1) My source of timing on the decision has changed his opinion
but is positive that the decision is coming in april, furthermore
90% of the decision is completed.
2) I have not spoken to any clerk, rather, I have spoken and been
in contact with a defendant's law firm who has kept me abreast of
the status of the decision and who unlike Fink, has a longstanding
history with Judge Jones and a relationship with her clerks.
3) The rule of law that was established by the seminole markman
case was not that the patentee's intent cannot be used to resolve
ambiguities in the interpretation of the patent claim, rather quite the
contrary, I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in the appellate
court ruling in markman. Furthermore, a patentee's intent is also
relevant in rebutting a prior art defense. I would suggest that your
cursory review of the markman case highlights your lack of legal
training and you need to study how the markman decision has
evolved and been altered through subsequent decisions. If
the intent of the patentee is not relevant why has Arnold, Grant and
Fink all represented that Freeny would testify at the markman.
Finally, how could the claims be self-explantory at the time they were
filed if the internet did not exist at that time, I would suggest that
Freeny's testimony is very relevant. Finally, I assure you some of the
defendant's are very concerned about this decision!!!!!
|
