BLR....not to make light(?) of your question....but the FlashR issues are coming to a head.

Handal, Purcell, e.Digital...us (them that hang as tough as the attorneys) have it on the line.

Some will cut and run, others will not.

IMO, Micron settles on the court steps. As that which they are proposing , regarding FlashBack, is not going to slow down the civil case to the pace of the IPR case. IMO, Micron is not going to hear the PTAB turn around the Civil Claims construction matters.

However, I make that comment with caution...As it depends on how deep in Microns pocket a person of the PTAB is. With the recent ruling, regarding 35 U.S.C.§ 312(a)(5). by the PTAB, IMO, someone is in Microns pocket. With that, might approve the IPR in fast fashion moving the IPR proceedings closer to the civil proceedings. I note this, because, 35 U.S.C.§ 312(a)(5) Is not simply about noticing issues, owner(OWNER) in the statute is not there simply for that matter.

There is structure to the statute regarding an owner:

Flow of property administration from an owner to Entities under LAW...under Law you have the right to be self motivated and you take on the task with a status of responsibility...

......................................___OWNER(as prosecution representation)

owner(ownership)__

.....................................___REPRESENTATIVE(as prosecution representation)

OWNER and REPRESENTATIVE are not interchangeable or relational in any manner. They are representations of two distinct issues in the statute as to patent prosecution matters....and not ownership.

REPRESENTATIVE has a definitive consideration in the statute. With that, an owner has two options to choose when applying for an application for a patent. Hire a REPRESENTATIVE or take on the matters as OWNER.

The statue has to represent both matters of patent prosecution representation, definitively, not just one consideration.

IMVHO, The PTAB is using OWNER of the 35 U.S.C.§ 312(a)(5) statute improperly. Micron is noticing through OWNER of the statute, where the owner(ownership) does not represent itself in the prosecution matters.

owner(ownership) and OWNER(as prosecution representation) are two separate rolls or entities.

doni