Nothing on PACER after hours. I think we'll get the PR from EDIG or a defendant company before it hits PACER though. My layman rationale is EDIG and most of the defendant companies are public and any big news that may affect share prices should be released to the world first. Not to those with PACER accounts first, and then the world. Not sure if the courts see it this way -- I guess we'll just have to wait and see. :)

76 days and counting. Someone asked if there's a time limit for the court to rule on the claim constructions. I can't imagine this to be true but would have to defer to an attorney. I expect Judge Krieger knows full well her ruling will either lead to a motion for dismissal by the defendants, or will promote settlements for EDIG. The defendants have even stated in a PACER doc that they believe settlement talks will be prudent after the Markman decision. Given that the judge is aware the pending ruling will likely clear this case from her docket fairly quickly, getting legally sound claim constructions is time well spent. IMO, it's absurd to think judges could be pressured by a ruling deadline, given the importance of the Markman decision in patent infringement cases.

I did find an interesting article on Markman hearings and have pasted a few paragraphs below.

------------

The dockets for U.S. judges are very crowded, so they do not have much time for any one case. Therefore, every opportunity before a judge is critically important and the arguments to be made should be well thought out. Good lawyers ask a judge to determine only the critically important claim construction issues. In the weeks leading up to a Markman hearing, the parties typically engage in negotiations to try to narrow the list of disputed terms. Parties that refuse to respect this process and require the judge to construe numerous terms may lose credibility with the judge. Thus, good lawyers focus on the critical limitations that can affect the infringement or validity analysis of a claim and avoid unnecessary claim construction issues.

Judges typically do their best to issue their rulings on claim construction within a reasonable amount of time after the Markman hearing, but given the demands of their dockets, this is not always possible. In these instances, the case is greatly complicated as it moves forward because the parties and their experts must develop alternative positions taking into account both sides' proposed claim constructions. Nonetheless, once a court issues its claim construction order, regardless of the timing, the parties have far more clarity on the issue and the overriding dispute. Obviously, this new insight helps to promote settlements.

In short, the Markman hearing in U.S. patent litigation has become a critical procedure, second only to the trial itself. Limitations of language leave claims subject to the interpretation of the reader, which leads to the core of many patent disputes. Courts have been instructed that they must resolve these disputes about interpretation and construe the claims for the litigants. To do this, judges must parse through the extensive and often confusing intrinsic and extrinsic evidence and make sense of it. Given that most judges do not have technical backgrounds and their dockets are typically crowded, claim construction can be a particularly demanding task for a judge. The Markman hearing represents a party's key opportunity to assist the judge with his or her task and to guide the judge through the evidence in a credible and convincing manner. This opportunity must be taken seriously by the lawyers and be fully supported by the client. Good advocacy here can lead to a positive claim construction ruling and enhance the possibility of settlement, saving the client the tremendous expense of a trial.