Could you explain why you have the differing opinion below...clearly there is substance in your post that needs explanation....not just to me, but the board.

RE: ron

"The Markman is designed to resolve disputed claim constructions so that the parties will know in advance what constructions will be given to the jury (or, in a bench trial, used by the judge) for use at trial in reaching a verdict --- these are issues pertaining to infringement, NOT validity."

Re:

'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..."

http://agoracom.com/ir/edigital/forums/discussion/topics/372382-in-memory-of-ll/messages/1245340#message

You say vadility is not an issue with Markman.....the attached comments seem to say different.

doni