|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
| We have it: 1201
[PDF]. No need to run to
Scribd with its privacy issues. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
Oh, noes! Too late to complain about claim construction:
In
May 2011, a claim construction order was issued (Dkt. No. 137). Neither party
filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. In January 2012, at the
request of the parties, a supplemental claim construction order for additional
terms was issued (Dkt. No. 704).
No theory of equivalents which
would have similarly been constrained by the Description for patent
'104:
Because Oracle had not disclosed an infringement theory under
the doctrine of equivalents, the only issue for the jury to decide was whether
Android literally infringed the
asserted claims in the ’104 and ’520
patents.
The rest is Oracle's confuse-a-cat strategy against the
jury failed. Seems they were resting on some big name plaintiff's counsel to
carry the day, and Denny Crane lost.
You could hope they paid Dr. Mitchell
enough. They may indeed have hurt his future income as an expert
witness.
Groklaw's
copy.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
