Thanks for your kind words Larry and John. The informational sources of my post were PACER docs so I’m sure Mr. Falk is keenly aware of my thoughts as he’s probably read them many times.

-----------

In my earlier post I wrote, “Therefore the defendants are stating flash memory = RAM.”

I should have been clearer and said defendants are stating that flash memory is used as a substitute for RAM. As DM wrote in Doc 296, defendants believe the term “flash memory” (claim A) as it relates to the ‘774 & ‘737 patents, equates to “main memory”. And though the defendants are careful not to define “main memory” in their proposed construction, their expert Dr. Mihran in his rebuttal report appears to equate main memory with RAM. Therefore, the defendants are trying to add “main memory” in the construction to convince the court that flash memory in the ‘774 & ‘737 replaces RAM because flash is main memory.

DM calls this “circuitous reasoning” and I agree completely. These defense attorneys are throwing anything and everything at the wall hoping something will stick. That’s their job – confuse the issues and narrow the claims in the hopes of getting their clients a favorable decision.

If the defense attorneys can get the court to accept at least one of their proposed constructions of the two key claims, their clients can later say, “We don’t infringe on any of the accused products because all of our products use RAM”.

From Doc 296, page 34: “Defendants are taking two bites at the same apple (i.e., (1) circuitously arguing that flash memory is main memory and therefore a replacement for RAM memory, and (2) arguing RAM is precluded from being in the system) with the hope that the Court will adopt at least one of their constructions so that Defendants can later try to create a non-infringement position to the extent any of the accused devices have RAM.”