RE: DM.....My prior comment..."And as you note, they have set legal precedence in IP law that all courts dealing in these matters now follow.

rephrase...

And as you note, the court set legal precedence in IP law that all courts dealing in these matters now follow.

For me, I consider that DM took their lumps arguing century and a half old law on the part of jurors..... they now have an in-depth wisdom on the matter..

==========================================================

"After the jury compared the patent to Westview's device, it found an infringement of Markman's independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10.

[n.2] The District Court nevertheless granted Westview's deferred motion for judgment as a matter of law, one of its reasons being that the term "inventory" in Markman's patent encompasses "both cash inventory and the actual physical inventory of articles of clothing." 772 F. Supp. 1535, 1537-1538 (ED Pa. 1991). Under the trial court's construction of the patent, the production, sale, or use of a tracking system for dry cleaners would not infringe Markman's patent unless the product was capable of tracking articles of clothing throughout the cleaning process and generating reports about their status and location. Since Westview's system cannot do these things, the District Court directed a verdict on the ground that Westview's device does not have the "means to maintain an inventory total" and thus cannot "detect and localize spurious additions to inventory as well as spurious deletions therefrom," as required by claim 1. Id., at 1537.

Markman appealed, arguing it was error for the District Court to substitute its construction of the disputed claim term `inventory' for the construction the jury had presumably given it. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the interpretation of claim terms to be the exclusive province of the court and the Seventh Amendment to be consistent with that conclusion. 52 F. 3d 967 (1995). Markman sought our review on each point, and we granted certiorari. 515 U. S. ___ (1995). We now affirm."

"Accordingly, we hold that the interpretation of the word "inventory" in this case is an issue for the judge, not the jury, and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

It is so ordered. "

If you trully have an interest @ all...for the wisdom of the courts involved.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-26.ZO.html

doni