There is "Structure" in law governing a law suit...

Ordinarliy the questions of "Fact" are left to the trier of the fact, which is usually a "Jury"...

Questions of "Law" are the domain of the Judge. So at the start of the trial, the lawyers will submit a set of "Instructions" to be given to a jury as to what the applicable "Law" is in the case at hand. The Judge then will make the determinatiuon of what instuctions he gives to the jury, or the trier of "Facts"...

The Jury then is exposed to the "Facts" as presented by the lawyers, and go into jury room. They decide which "Facts" they beleive, and then apply the "Law" as instructed b y the judge, and make an AWARD in favor of one party or the other...

In a nut shell what DM manged to do in the Markman Case was to convince the Supreme Court of the United States that in complex litigation like I.P., the judge was better suited to make a decision as to what "Facts" are to be considered by the jury. This, in effect made the decision on the facts a question of "Law" and assigned the task to the Judge...

Thus a Markman Hearing has been described as a Mini Trial before the Judge before the Trial of the case. And most of the Legal opinion is that after a Markman Hearing the only issue left for the Jury to decide, (Should the case survice SMJ motions brought by the parties), is "HOW MUCH" are the damages to be assessed...

GLTA...

Gil...