Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : EDTA (was GIFT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ksuave who wrote (2232)	9/2/1998 6:25:00 PM
From: GRC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2383

Here is an email I received from defs' attorney. After I read the brief and fill any trades I want to make I'll post my comments. I did pick some up today, as did others. GRC E-Data's reply is now posted Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 10:49:49 -0600 From: Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com> To: (Recipient list suppressed) Graham & James, counsel for E-Data, has kindly provided in machine-readable form its Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 15, 1998 Order Interpreting the Claims of the Patent-In-Suit. The brief is online at patents.com . What will happen next? The Motion for Reconsideration is now fully briefed and the parties in the New York action await a decision by the Court on the Motion. Of course, the decision will also be of interest to the defendants in the Connecticut action, and to the tens of thousands of companies which were told by the plaintiff that they were next after this case is over, and that were encouraged by the plaintiff to take licenses under the patent. If the Motion is granted, it seems likely there would be further Markman proceedings directed to interpretation of the scope of the claims. If the Motion is denied, it seems likely that most if not all of the defendants would move for summary judgment of noninfringement. If such motions were granted, it seems likely that the plaintiff would appeal. Such an appeal would go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Carl Oppedahl Oppedahl & Larson patents.com