The additional terms that we have reached agreement on last night were "metadata database" and "data bag." And we also reached an agreement concerning the use of the word "component" in construction of two of the claim terms; that being a "rule set processor" and a "script processor," so we have agreed that those mean software components.

In this case JuxtaComm is trying to expand the meaning of the claims really beyond anything that is supported in the specification. They entered into a crowded field and right out of the chute in the file history acknowledged that there was art out there that did what they did. And as a result of that, they define some terms very narrowly. Now they want it both ways so that they can apply one construction for infringement in order to get the patent allowed.

The defendants' position is that those terms have very clear meaning in the ordinary course of things to people of ordinary skill in the art at the time that this application was filed. And the plaintiffs' construction, on the other hand, essentially boils it down to any commands executed by any software and we think read those limitations out of the claims.

1. Plaintiff: a group of commands to control data movement into and out of the system, and to control data transformation within the system
2. Defendants: A series of text commands interpretively run by the script processor, such that one command at a time is translated and executed at runtime before the next command is translated and executed, and that control data movement into and out of the system and control data transformation within the system
3. Judge: a group of commands to control data movement into and out of the system, and to control data transformation within the system

the main dispute between the parties and I think where a lot of the argument will focus, obviously, is on the "script" and "script processor" terms and in particular whether those terms require text commands that are interpretively executed. And, secondly, whether those commands are interpreted by the script processor and what that means.

And the plaintiffs' construction, on the other hand, essentially boils it down to any commands executed by any software

"We distinguish over Morgenstern because Morgenstern doesn't use metadata from a metadata database to control data transformation."

THE COURT: November 9th. I am getting a little behind. It may be six weeks or two months before I can get a formal opinion out. Let me ask you if it would be helpful to the parties for me to get out a preliminary ruling that would not include the full-blown opinion but give you some guidance in working with your experts

THE COURT: We will try to do that in the next few days then and allow you to move forward. Who is your mediator in this case?
MR. MACON: Jim Knowles is our mediator.
THE COURT: Have y'all had a mediation?
MR. MACON: We had a mediation. We were successful with a number of the defendants. There are still several others who we are still in discussions with.
THE COURT: As far as mediation, defendants have any comment on that? Would another session be helpful, or are y'all talking with the mediator, both sides?
MR. PENSABENE: Your Honor, according to the scheduling order, there is a deadline for a second mediation. The deadline for that is triggered by the decision on claim construction, so I think it would helpful to have clarification as to when that deadline would be, relevant to the intermediate opinion or the formal opinion that the Court --
THE COURT: I would think that you could go ahead and mediate after the preliminary opinion, which you should have, if not by the end of this week by the first part of next week.
MR. MACON: We will be agreeable to that.
THE COURT: Y'all go back, visit with Mr. Knowles, see if you can work out a business solution to your problem. If not, we will see you in November.