Did anyone notice that I haven't posted about this yet? LOL

Yes, a Thank You to Wolf for the info on EDoT reversal rates, and the recap of the Markman. It brings home the pertinent points.

So, the '584 appeal didn't go as some expected?

What did you expect?

That J Ward had done something wrong in his proceedings?

That, recognizing that we ourselves have modified the '584 by removing Claim 29 and inserting some 25 new claims as part of the re-exam (acknowledgment of a weakness, IMO), somehow Claim 29 would be re-instated with our preferred construction?

I honestly don't see how anyone could be surprised, or disappointed, by this outcome.

I think it's fairly obvious that the only thing that could have "turned things around" is if the re-exam had been completed and the construction of Claim 29 "reversed" by the PTO to our preferred construction. They/we KNOW this didn't happen.

Perhaps some were under the impression that, if the re-exam was completed, and Claim 29 pulled and replaced with those 25 new claims, that this could turn things around. Even then, it seems that (legally) the appeal would pertain to the '584 and construction as the patent claims were at the time of the Markman, not per a "revised" patent.

So why the Appeal? IMO, at the time the appeal was made, our team did not know how the USPTO would "rule" on Claim 29.

So what now, re: the '584? IMO, we wait till the re-exam is complete and we have, essentially, a new (revised) patent. Then we go after whomever.

Again, this outcome should not have come as a surprise at all, based on things we now KNOW.

How big a deal is the delay? A very small deal, IMO. First, we're still licensing the entire MMP, including '584. IMO, it's fairly obvious that even our "opponents" feel that the '584 may come out of the re-exam with some teeth.

It also suggests that, when a licensee licenses the MMP, they're probably looking at all the other patents in that package. They know about the re-exams in process. Yet many/most license anyway (without contingencies, assuming they're in play - which is purely delusional conjecture). They know what we know:

It only takes one dog to bite you.

And at least one "dog" in the MMP kennel has teeth "for to bite you with".

Is this positive spin? Methinks it's more just a reality check.

All JMHOs,

SGE