I reread this and it sounds a little strident. It wasn't meant to be. I am just looking for you too flesh out your opinions a little more. Other views are always helpful.
Please be specific. On what do you base your opinion that
"providing from a source remotely located with respect to the
information manufacturing machine the information to be reproduced
to the information manufacturing machine, each information being
uniquely identified by a catalog code"
requires providing and storing. When the patentee wanted to say store, he did. You sound like you know enough to know the basic claim interpretation rule that limitations in the specification cannot be imported into the claims. Given that rule, what is your justification for saying the claims require providing and storing. Also, what about claim differentiation? One more, why did the claims say "store" in many claims (5 e.g.), when you say "provide" means store?
How many attorneys without an axe to grind have you discussed the patent with? Did all of them say it had no chance? (Remember the system that found OJ not guilty will be deciding this). There is always some uncertainty. Lets say GIFT has a 20% chance of winning. What will be the damages? Is 20% of that more than the current price?
You suggest the judge will find no infringement on technicalities even if she reverses herself on interpretation. What technicalities? What element of claim 1 (for example) might she find not present? Also, are you suggesting this will be decided on summary judgement? All that is need to pass summary judgement is a material disputed fact. then it goes to a jury, who can do anything.
I don't mean to suggest this is a sure thing, nor do I think GIFt will prevail on their motion, but it is not a sure loss wither (IMHO). My guess is she will ask for a reply brief (at least on the point of sale issue), and then probably rule against GIFT because it is very rare to win this type of motion.
GRC
FTR- long |
