If the 336 is still considered valid ( which it should because it hasn't been invalidated yet) How can Judge Fogel use the fact that it is under reexamination as an argument to counter TPL's claim for a change in venue? I was under the impression that you could only argue with points of law, not what maybe a point of law in the future. Doesn't seem to be relevent at the present. Hope our lawyers catch that. Hope we are not seeing an indication of where the Judges sentiments ly.

"In addition, the relevance of one of 7 these patents (the ‘336 patent) is suspect as it is in reexamination before the USPTO, where all claims currently stand rejected."