No Gil, that isn't what happened. Both Parties agreed that if the 2 key claims were ruled for the Defendants, the case would be over and the judge would not need to rule on the remaining 6.

However, if both key claims were ruled for EDIG, the Defendants (not EDIG) asked that the remaining 6 claims be construed. And if that happens, EDIG said their written definitions would stand, and I assume Defendants written definitions would stand.

EDIG would have been OK with the remaining 6 claims being construed based on their plain and ordinary meaning but since the Defendants asked the court for a ruling if they lost the 2 key claims, EDIG of course said, "Use our written definitions for the remaining 6".