Offhand I do not recall where I read it. I think it was probably in the trial transcript. I believe our counter is that deminimus infringement is still infringement. While our argument may be valid, it doesn't do much to deminish the impact to the other side's argument. IMO, that looms large in front of a jury.

It would be far more preferable if we were able to poke holes in the respondents argument instead of just repeating that deminimus varying is still infringement.

Hopefully our team can convince the jury that deminimus is still infringement, by some other means than just repeating it. And just repeating it for the judge may have been proper, since we were theorectically dealing with law not perception. I suspect/hope we will do things differently for jury consuption.

Opty