Re: PACER - Collateral Estoppel Granted
in response to
by
posted on
Dec 07, 2013 01:07AM
Wow, 28 new cases filed this week?! Amazing work by Handal and his team.
The first nine lawsuits I looked at only assert that claim 1 of the '108 patent has been infringed on; no mention of the '774, '737, '170 or '445 patents.
"The accused product, alone or in combination with other products, practice each of the limitations of independent claim 1 of the '108 patent."
Claim 1 of the '108 was NOT part of Judge Sabraw's Collateral Estoppel order (only claims 2 & 5 were) so the Defendants can't request that these lawsuits be dismissed due to the CE order. And since claim 1 is an independent claim, it doesn't rely on any other claims, such as 2 or 5.
Well done Handal.