Re: Pacer: e.Digital Corporation v. iSmart Alarm, Inc. ~ SCHEDULING ORDER - BLR
posted on
Jul 28, 2016 07:23PM
"So the PTAB knew that there were several cases that had been stayed pending the results of Google IPR and terminated it anyway. The PTAB initially granted the IPR but may now feel that it likely would have ended up not dispositive to Edig. Encouraging."
Yes it is....however...Perhaps the PTAB realized something else, if it was to rule dis- posiutive to e.Digital...
Perhaps.... exhibited Prior art NEW IP vs. NEW IP challenged....has a miss step in finality.
The PTAB would be giving, by default, a gold seal to exhibited Prior art NEW....would they want to pass on that privileged situation?
IMVHO, there is a real conundrum to this sticky situation....because an IPR is very decisive in conclusion.
doni