The opinion of this lay person - should anyone care to know it ....

< other federal district judges, including Ware, are not required to abide by Ward's Markman ruling in the J3 case.>

Yes, that is true but, imo, there would have to be a darn good reason to overturn any of Judge Ward's constructions. In other words, I doubt a conflict would arise that is not accompanied with a thorough and valid explanation. 

<Another complicating factor in the T3 case is that the PTO re-certs may have changed the claim language in such a way that the Ward ruling from the J3 case is no longer substantially applicable.>

It matters little if the claim language changed. What matters is whether the revised language impacted the scope of the patent. Nothing in the 148 was amended and Henneman and TPL have specifally stated that nothing has changed the scope of the 336 or 749. See link for more on scope.



http://www.oppedahl.com/apl/westvaco.pdf



< if the Markman ruling from Judge Ward was absolute binding authority on Judge Ware, we would have seen a motion for summary judgment filed by TPL (or, alternatively, a stipulation of infringement from the T3) long ago>



None of the terms/phrases in the top 10 were construed by Judge Ward. For the most part Ward construed words, while Ware is construing phrases that often contain those previously construed words. While the previously construed words help, not exactly apples to apples. But it makes perfect sense that the opposition would not directly attack the Ward constructions.

All in this lay person's opinion.

Opty