<there are still unresolved isssues that the court wants the parties to address >

Yes, I made note of that as well while I was reading. But actually that is a good sign. Just because the court saw some things as ambiguous, even with a tech expert on hand, the judge did not want to make any hasty decision which could be adverse to the patent holder. And looking at those instances where ambiguity came in to play, the ambiguity was really there.

I wonder if any of those patents for which Judge Ware was looking to get more input on because of that ambiguity in the claims have been reexamined by the USPTO?

Opty