"If it goes back for IPR what's the timeframe here; any related we can look at sman, our 774 review."

emit, defendant petitions for the IPR under suggestion to the PTO that it's only about one eity-bity claim matter and should be a speedy process....lol

The particulars defendant is now imposing is the heart of everything e.Digital, where the paper trail to understand it under judicial scrutiny to date is absolutely horrendous.

Important dates:

Re-exam 774 start.............................10-27-2010......review application 90/011,302

CO ruling ..........................................06-28-2011

Re-exam re-cert 774 end ....................08-14-2012.....

HANDAL & ASSOCIATES introduced...09-17-2012

First of cases named post re-exam......10-19-2012......Huawei complaint.. 4-1-2013

CE ruling ...... ...................................08-21-2013......judge ignored USPTO RAM amendement

Appeal start:......................................12-27-2013

Appeal decision:................................10-19-2014 .....

1st Claims tentative order....................11-21-2014

1st Claims Order 108 claim 1...............12-12-2014

IPR2015-00519...................................12-31-2014.....filing date to be resolved

2nd Claims Order 108 claim 1..............02-15-2015

All of the above to come to an understanding of the claim matters in question within the judicial system....discrete segment methods...programmed to memory through a simple caching method(RAM).

Now that the judicial system finally understands it...it's pushed back for a PTO appeal review. I hope that the PTO review panel can come to conclusion in faster fashion than the judicial system did....after all, its only one eitsy -bitsy claim term....with 5 years of paper trail.

doni