Considering the Mammoth amount of Products Infringing and considering how much time WE all spent just trying to "decipher" some of the CC rulings made by Judge Ward, it's no wonder that NO Word on Settlement has come down yet.

I received the email "below" just before I left for Africa and I am NOW posting it in hopes that we all focus on the FACT that what PTSC and WE OWN is CORE technology that is in everything digital in the WORLD.

Of course the defense is trying EVERYTHING they can to "invalidate" the patents because they sure cannot PROVE that they are NOT Infringing. Turn over every stone..........although I think this is a little After the fact, IMO.

ONE other note, the Leckrones made it clear that they have Mastered the Art of Negotiation but they also made it clear that they will NOT take NO for an Answer.

Even if we have to wait until Christmas, there is a Big Beautiful Light at the end of the Tunnel we are all in. Hang in there ease and thank God you are always so Positive GREENEYES.........I just love ya Gal!

Below is the email from Michael Smith: (comments very welcome and wanted)

"Well, the Markman ruling is now done. Once the parties know how the claims terms are construed in most cases one or both sides think that the constructions means that they win as a matter of law, and file summary judgment motions saying that a trial isn't necessary. If the judge agrees, then they grant summary judgment for one side or the other. While that's not uncommon, usually there are still fact issues remaining that require a trial - but both sides have a much better idea which side is now more likely to win, and settlement is much more likely.

Having the judge side with you more often than not is certainly helpful, but typically there are certain things the plaintiff must not lose on in order to keep their case alive - for example I had a case last year where we won on four terms out of five, but the fifth term we had to have so when we lost it we agreed to a judgment being entered against us based on the judge's Markman ruling, so we could appeal the ruling on that fifth term.

What is happening at this stage is that the parties are deciphering the judge's rulings (many bof which didn't just adopt one side or the other) and comparing them to the products at issue to see which products, if any, the plaintiff can still make out a case on, and which they can't. If the judge's construction says that to infringe a table has to have a drawer, then any products that don't have a drawer will be dropped either voluntarily or on summary judgment. On the defense side, they'll be seeing if the constructions knock out the whole case, and if so, filing SJ motions to that effect.

Usually, to extend the analogy, the plaintiff said the patent covers any desks and the defendant said it's limited to oak desks with drawers with brass knobs, and the court disagreed with both and said that the patent is limited to wood desks with drawers that have a way to grasp the drawer and pull it out. You can see how that would require everyone to go back to the drawing board and figure out which products are definitely out, and which are not, i.e. is a desk drawer that doesn't have a knob but has a recessed finger pull covered? What if there's no explicit recess, but the contour of the bottom of the drawer does the same thing. And does it matter whether the desk maker intended that, or it just happens tyo work that way? So you see there is less gray than there was, but usually there's still some.

Addto this uncertainty that the reversal rate on appeal for judges' claims construction rulings averages about 40% and you can see how uncertain that is. But - and this is huge - neither Judge Ward nor Judge Davis nor Judge Clark - who combined have handled maybe 500 patent cases in the ED of Texas in the past few years - have EVER been reversed on a claims construction ruling (Judge Ward had one term changed once, but it was minor enough that reversal wasn't required). That's one reason people file here - they can rely on the judges' Markman rulings - which saves immense amounts of time and money avoiding an appeal on CC issues."

Hope this helps.

Michael