EDOT Markman determined infringement only. In other words all the claims but one, that being claim 29 of the 584, the judge determined that the J's product infringed. The USPTO re-exam was brought about because of "prior art" issues. Whether, or not the patents are valid because previous to them being filed there may be evidence that someone else invented it first, or something simular that made it "obvious". That is what is being determined by USPTO. What was rejected in the 336 was for prior art issues. The Judge did not deal with validiy in Texas. He could have decided to determine validiy if we had gone to trial. It is much more advantageous for us to let the USPTO determine validity and in my opinon that is why we did not go to trial in Texas, why we settled for peanuts when it was determined the J's infringed.

The Markmen hearing was not about validity, it was about infringement.