invalidity contentions "stricken" because of the thousands of possible combinations of prior art they cited?

Remember what happened next? MEI said, Oh your Honor, it has "JUST" come to our attention that PUBPAT (PUBSPIT LOL) filed 3 references of Prior Art and uh, sir, we're going to use that! Yes, that's the ticket!

Remember what happened next? Roger Cook requested that the Motion to Strike the Invalidity claim be withdrawn.

TT&C already knew what PUBPAT cited as prior art, as did MEI, for months prior to the above Motion being filed.

MEI was searching for something OTHER than what PUBPAT had because MEI KNEW that what PUBPAT submitted wouldn't hold water.

In the end, they either faced the Judge Striking the Invalidity claim due to a certain rule being violated (can't remember the rule number) or submit "something, anything" that they could move forward with while the rest of the attorney's worked on their "assigned projects" toward winning their case.

And it appeared in the final analysis that ALL they really had was the hope and prayer that JW would violate ACP so that the defense could spin a tale in front of a Texas jury that would hopefully leave them with doubt about ownership, inventor ship, impropriety, and fraud.

IMO all we are waiting for now are the numbers of the settlement.

FS2006, any ideas about how many of the defendants widgets have infringed since 1989 based on total sales since then? I know that's a tall order and even our own attorney's were having difficulty assessing this. Also didn't help that the defendants were dragging their feet on giving us this information. GEE, I wonder why?

Would one half of one percent of all sales/products containing the MMP be a fair payout over the past 18 years?

I know that both sides are trying to meet in the middle somewhere in order to settle, but I would imagine that it's got to be FAR greater than the $30+ Million that Fujitsu paid almost 2 years ago.

Anybody care to comment? Please?

GLTA

Getting excited!!!!

D