BLR , Agree with your comment and postponing further decisions till new Claim
Construction hearing. And the followings ...
[T]he availability of post-
Markman hearing vacatur [may] encourage the gambler within some litigants. They may well decide to litigate the construction of the claims in the hope that the court’s construction will be favorable to them. If they are ultimately disappointed, they can then come back to the court and ask that the orderbe vacated. * * * Given the substantial amount of time and effort typically entailed by Markman decisions, judicial economy would be enhanced by structuring the incentives so as to encourage pre-Markman hearing settlement. . . . Not vacating this court’sMarkman order also serves another valuable systemic purpose. Regardless of whether the decision has preclusive effect in another action involving the same patent claims, it might be of some yet undefined assistance to other judges and litigants inthe future.
