Zurück
Werbung
Follow up re contact with Otteson....
posted on May 11, 13 10:06PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]
At the outset, please understand that I will not be able to continue posting in the near term. As mentioned earlier, I have a very important trial on May 20, and preparation is heating up. Therefore, this post is lengthy because I won't be following up anytime soon.
I have continued to receive numerous contacts from fellow shareholders over the last couple of months, all of which I have appreciated and to which I have done the best I can to respond. However, due to the confidential nature of many of the recent filings, any responses I have provided have necessarily been very hesitant, and I'm sure in some instantces I've just been plain wrong. As a result, and with the assitance of another shareholder who paved the way, I decided I would atttempt to contact Mr. Otteson, and I did so yesterday morning while I had a few spare minutes. Frankly, I was surprised that he would be willing to talk about the case, but he replied almost immediately and was very hospitable. As it turns out, we have some colleagues in common, and it was a pleasure to speak with him.
Before moving on, let me urge you not to contact Mr. Otteson any further at this juncture. I'm sure he would attempt to do what he can to reply, but, obviously, I don't think he would want to start getting bombarded with scores of calls and/or emails from shareholders. I have his permission to share the following with other investors, and, at least until the MSDs have been ruled upon, I believe all of us should simply await that event.
My first question to Mr. Otteson referenced the striking of our supplemental expert report, over which I was concerned. Mr. Otteson advised, however, that this report was very short and only intended to clarify a couple of issues, and that he believes there is a great deal of evidence otherwise in the record that adequately supports our position. As a result, Mr. Otteson does not believe that the striking of the supplemental report did any great harm to us. Of course, that doesn't gurantee a ruling in our favor, but it doesn't seem as bad as it appeared on the surface.
The only other question I asked Mr. Otteson pertained to page 20 and following of the corrected Markman ruling, in which the ITC Judge apparently held that disavowal in the PTO did indeed occur as to some claims, and in which he apparently adopted the interpretation offered by our opponents. Yet, at the same time, the ITC Judge appeared to have adopted language that significantly follows Judge Ward back in the EDoT, which is what I found especially confusing. In my admittedly less-than-expert reading of this, the overriding issue seems to be the interpretation of the word "entire" in this context, which Mr. Otteson confirmed.
Mr. Otteson further replied that, obviously, he would have preferred that the Judge had accepted our contruction. However, even though the Judge did not do so, Mr. Otteson believes that we have still presented a lot of evidence of infringement and have a strong argument in favor of such, even under the Judge's construction. Mr. Otteson also acknowledged that the Judge's construction is indeed very close to Judge Ward's version in the EDoT. In closing, of course, Mr. Otteson added, as would all good lawyers, that nothing is a given, and that the ruling on the MSDs simply cannot be predicted with certainty --- not even by him.
I do not know when I will post here again, if ever. Nevertheless, having been able to contact Mr. Otteson and obtain meaningful infomation, I felt it would be unfair not to share it with the forum.
Best wishes to all.
posted on May 11, 13 10:06PM (Log in to use the IP Check tool) [?]
At the outset, please understand that I will not be able to continue posting in the near term. As mentioned earlier, I have a very important trial on May 20, and preparation is heating up. Therefore, this post is lengthy because I won't be following up anytime soon.
I have continued to receive numerous contacts from fellow shareholders over the last couple of months, all of which I have appreciated and to which I have done the best I can to respond. However, due to the confidential nature of many of the recent filings, any responses I have provided have necessarily been very hesitant, and I'm sure in some instantces I've just been plain wrong. As a result, and with the assitance of another shareholder who paved the way, I decided I would atttempt to contact Mr. Otteson, and I did so yesterday morning while I had a few spare minutes. Frankly, I was surprised that he would be willing to talk about the case, but he replied almost immediately and was very hospitable. As it turns out, we have some colleagues in common, and it was a pleasure to speak with him.
Before moving on, let me urge you not to contact Mr. Otteson any further at this juncture. I'm sure he would attempt to do what he can to reply, but, obviously, I don't think he would want to start getting bombarded with scores of calls and/or emails from shareholders. I have his permission to share the following with other investors, and, at least until the MSDs have been ruled upon, I believe all of us should simply await that event.
My first question to Mr. Otteson referenced the striking of our supplemental expert report, over which I was concerned. Mr. Otteson advised, however, that this report was very short and only intended to clarify a couple of issues, and that he believes there is a great deal of evidence otherwise in the record that adequately supports our position. As a result, Mr. Otteson does not believe that the striking of the supplemental report did any great harm to us. Of course, that doesn't gurantee a ruling in our favor, but it doesn't seem as bad as it appeared on the surface.
The only other question I asked Mr. Otteson pertained to page 20 and following of the corrected Markman ruling, in which the ITC Judge apparently held that disavowal in the PTO did indeed occur as to some claims, and in which he apparently adopted the interpretation offered by our opponents. Yet, at the same time, the ITC Judge appeared to have adopted language that significantly follows Judge Ward back in the EDoT, which is what I found especially confusing. In my admittedly less-than-expert reading of this, the overriding issue seems to be the interpretation of the word "entire" in this context, which Mr. Otteson confirmed.
Mr. Otteson further replied that, obviously, he would have preferred that the Judge had accepted our contruction. However, even though the Judge did not do so, Mr. Otteson believes that we have still presented a lot of evidence of infringement and have a strong argument in favor of such, even under the Judge's construction. Mr. Otteson also acknowledged that the Judge's construction is indeed very close to Judge Ward's version in the EDoT. In closing, of course, Mr. Otteson added, as would all good lawyers, that nothing is a given, and that the ruling on the MSDs simply cannot be predicted with certainty --- not even by him.
I do not know when I will post here again, if ever. Nevertheless, having been able to contact Mr. Otteson and obtain meaningful infomation, I felt it would be unfair not to share it with the forum.
Best wishes to all.
, zum Glück werden Meinungsäußerungen in diesem Brett noch nicht gelöscht!
, das deudet allerdings eher auch auf die Zensur in diesem Brett wieder, diese Vögel zensieren je nach Denke und Position / Lage einiger weiniger. 
