I am not an attorney and have no legal experience. However, I do not believe the judge has to give a response (construe, define, etc) on the 6 non-key terms if she finds in favor of the defendants on the 2 key terms. Sitting in the courtroom and reading the transcripts makes that clear to me. In that instance, the 2 terms would be considered dispositive and the case would probably be over.

If she finds in favor of the plaintiff on the 2 terms, she does have to construe the remaining 6 terms because the defendants requested it. Even though the plaintiff said they would be OK with their plain and ordinary meaning. And I don't think the judge determines what the plain and ordinary meaning of terms is. Perhaps each legal team will attempt to define this for the jury (if the case goes to trial) and they ultimately decide.

For the record, based on the strength of our case, I think the judge will construe all 8 claim terms, but don't think she has to unless we get favorable constructions on the 2 key terms.

OK, I'm done. Don't know how else to express my opinion on this. ;)