This is not that complicted...
As you discern, the MARKMAN CASE, (which by the way was tried and taken up the Supreme Court on United States by DM), concerned the issue should a lay Jury be subjected to hours of complex scientific testimoney to reach a decision as to (1) Liability and (2) extent of damages to be awarded in a lawsuit?...
The Supreme Court agreed with DM'S position that it is best to bifurcate the technical issues relating to "validity" of a claim by a patent holder that require extensive technical testimoney on submitted evidence, from the issue of "damages" to be awarded by the trier of the fact...
Thus whence the "VALIDITY" is decided by a Court, the only question left for the jury to decided is "HOW MUCH" the damages are to be...
In more non-technical sense, after a positive MARKAMAN RULING for EDIG, the only issue left as respect to the individual alleged infringers for the jury to decided will be "HOW MUCH" they are tp pay to EDIG for their infringing activities...
Again, for a clear explanation of the cencets involved I refer you to Justice Bryson's opininion in SANDISK CORPORATION vs. STMICROELECTRONICS , 480 F. 2d 1382, March 26, 2007.
Gil...
