During last week's conflict on the OT I saw the following kind of buried in the flurry:

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} p {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Times; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Times; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

"1) The 2011 Patent Reform Act (passed by the House of Representatives last week) may (or may not) actually INCLUDE the ability for a Markman Hearing to have Interlocutory Appeal...

Obviously, POTUS has to sign it for it to become law, but if he does sign it within the next 25 days (by 7/28?), then it becomes the law of the land, and I would "assume" that DM would in fact be able to initiate an interlocutory appeal of Judge Krieger's ruling. Obviously, if that particular language is not in the bill, then the point is moot.

2) If there IS NOT any "interlocutory appeal element" inside the 2011 Patent Reform Act, then the next thing to do would be to research would be...

a) Any examples of "ANY" defendants or plaintiffs who have proceeded to jury trial after a dispositive construction claim has been ruled against them.

b) And if so, to what extent are there examples whereby the losing party (on the MH hearing), actually PREVAILED at a jury trial.

I would think that if DM would/could go to a jury trial, that EDIG could actually win. “Emotions", "human nature”, and a "David vs. Goliath”, story would all be in Edig’s favor.... ("If the glove does not fit, you must acquit"...Johnny Cochran)

If you can come up with ANY of the above examples, then there's still hope."

I haven't seen any other postings/comments regarding the above. I reckon DM is aware that this has been going on, if it has, and is now pending. If its real and POTUS does sign it, I wonder what effect it might have JK's 30 Day Undecision and the agruments to be then made, and on her comment "I understand this Ruling might interpreted in favor of the Defendants..."

I simply don't know,

Spec...