If so, direct me to the reply please...TIA.

I've have read most of your comments concerning the ruling by MK.

Based on your research of the documents your thinking is that the judge made several contradictory statements in writing her opinion and point those out in your post.

You also comment on other aspects of the judge and her remarks that seemed to reflect her opinion as opposed to other written or testimonial material.

I'm wondering if the case was so filled with misunderstood documentation and personal opinion, then why didn't DM continue to pursue the remaining claim construction and even carry it to a trial?

It seems to me that the conclusion you write in your post would have been close to the thought process by DM, and if so, they would have wanted to continue. It appears that their current strategy is to try and settle the remaining cases, forget about Colorado and MK and move to new territory.

Please comment as to why you think DM didn't continue and also why they choose the current route.