“As to the latter (evidentiary issues), you will recall that the defendant in Forgent had judicially admitted infringement, yet still won the case on invalidity   ---   how's that for some "evidence handling"?  From a lawyer's standpoint, it turned out to be an absolutely beautiful maneuver, and very gutsy IMO.”

FWIW…Echostar was the defendant in the case, and the Forgent patent in question was the US 6,285,746, “Computer controlled video system allowing playback during recording” filed with the USPTO September 4, 2001. You might remember that Echostar lost their lawsuit to TiVo in Marshall last year, and the patent in question in that lawsuit was TiVo’s US 6,233,389, “Multimedia Time Warping System” filed with the USPTO May 15, 2001. IMO, if you read both patents, it is obvious that Forgent’s patent is invalid as TiVo filed their “389 patent first, and essentially they both do the same thing. Echostar is very intimate with TiVo’s ‘389 patent being they just lost the lawsuit in 2006, so IMO that was an obvious play by Forgent’s legal team. All IMO.  GLTAL