A longer term vision might suggest that we paid a lot of legal fees now to obtain substantive rulings that can be applied in future legal proceedings. We hoped the J3 would cave and they didn't.
We avoid the inherent risk of a trial without validity from the USPTO.
Once the USPTO revalidates the 336 and 148, then we can proceed to trial, most likely in Texas in front of J Ward, with a clearer path. We will have already gone through the Texas with Townsend, Townsend and Crew and will have the necessary expertise the second time around. We should be better prepared to show infringement charts for all chips, not just representative chips.
I think that was the strategy. Delay until we have validity decided in an ex part reexam as opposed to a jury with Cook possibly arguing numerous claim charts in front a jury. Also, having Cooking having to argue in front of a jury about how the 336 and 148 are not obvious.
I guess (guess) I would prefer the ex part reexam where I have the sole voice in the matter. I would think it would be easier if I believed the patents were solid. Takes some uncertainty out of the equation when you have "qualified" people reexaming the patents (multiple examiners do review the patent. obviously there is one main examiner). A jury does not have the same expertise and it would be up to Cook to simplify things.
I would prefer going to trial saying to a jury that the USPTO issued the 336 and 148 in the first place and they just reissued the patents on reexam and stated the patents are unequivocably patentable items, non obvious, etc. So Cook wouldn't have to 'persuade' anyone. The USPTO seal of approval is absolute, 100%, persuasion enough.
Did Lecky Sr. and Jr. want to roll the dice with Cook in front of a jury WITHOUT the USPTO seal of approval?
GLTAL
16 members recommend this.
