More on Markman hearings. I respectfully disagree, Ramsey.
Yesterday, I learned more about Markman hearings. One of the local federal magistrates gave a luncheon talk, and I asked whether the magistrate had ever conducted a Markman hearing. The answer was one. What I was told is that Markman is a very new case--only a few years old--so there is not much law on how they are to be conducted. Different judges handle them differently, and, as I indicated, there aren't many legal decisions indicating how they are to be handled. Many judges do not hear ANY evidence but only the argument of counsel. Some judges appoint an expert in patents to act as special master; others do not.
I got a better idea of what the purpose of the hearing is: "Construction" of the patent claims. An analogy to a written contract is the best way to describe "construction." If there are no fact questions, the meaning of a contract is a question of law; the judge reads the contract and decides what it means. In the Markman hearing, the judge (sometimes based on the recommendation of a special master) reads the patents on which the suit is based, construes them, and decides whether the plaintiff's claims come within the patent on which those claims are founded.
Ramsey, in response to your post, I respectfully disagree, not that what you say is not correct, but other factors come in to play and in my opinion are more important. The biggest drag on Qcom stock has the IPR uncertainty. Qcom has, from all reports and appearances, been very confident of its IPR position. Therefore, it has the incentive to push the case faster for a resolution. From Qcom's point of view, resolution of the suit would have a greater favorable impact on Qcom. |
