Speculation is a favorite pastime of this board.

To be honest, the more I think about it, the more I like my speculation.

It was not necessary for the Special Master to allow us a second round of amending the ICs. He could have just as easily, went the other way since the first amended ICs did not conform to rule 3.1 or whatever the number was. I do not believe the SM was legally required to give us another shot. So what was his motivation for doing so?

The SM was well aware of our arguments that Barco was attempting to litigate the case through the IC issue, trying to short circuit the system for their benefit by demanding proof, not just contentions.

And it appears that the SM was keenly aware of what discovery is turning up. For example.

< It appears to the Special Master’s satisfaction that the SEAGATE documents which are the subject of this order may well be relevant to the moving parties reply to the pending motion to strike. Accordingly, SEAGATE is ordered to provide responsive documents on or before February 24, 2012>

SM knows these docs are relevant. Exactly what do the Seagate documents show? How much further did the revised ICs go in providing the PROOF that Barco was looking for?

Barco was looking to win by litigating the IC issue. I'm wondering if it is possible that they lost via the same route? Is it possible to have a SJ based solely on overwhelming evidence contained in the revised ICs prior to any Markman?

Are we waiting for Barco to settle before we see the Markman?

Opty