Your point that, because we did not assert the 584 against the Ts when we filed in Texas, means that the patent no longer has teeth, is not necessarily the case.

Why would TPL risk asserting the 584? It was in a weakened condition because of the lost appeal of Judge Ward's Markam construction. There is no way they would assert the 584 in judge Ward's court, at least until they had something definitive from the PTO. They have that now. And I do believe that the 584 remains one of the patents at issue in the California court.

Your statement that because claim 29 was ammended, it therefore must be a watered down version is based on what? Anyway, isn't an ammended 584 patent a good thing? Think about that. Claims have changed, hence prior Markman construction may no longer apply. The lost appeal may no longer be relevant, in EDofT or anywhere else.

I'll be the first to admit that I do not know whether the changes to the 584 has helped or hindered. But if judge Ward's contested construction is in there, it's hiding. I do not see it. And that gives me hope that the 584 still has some fight left in it. All IMHO Opty