(Total Views: 231)
Posted On: 12/12/2017 6:21:07 PM
Post# of 82687
Z, good point on them (SFOR & RG) being aware of 101 (and they very well should be due to SA filing a motion on it on 7/21/17, Doc 87) and talked about it.
However, they didn't expect this abrupt ruling, I bet.
Since both parties were discussing claim construction and markman hearing until just 2 wks before the CA judge dropped the bomb. (Today's my review of all SA's dockets showing that)
Ref.:134 11/16/17 11/16/17 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Flash drive containing Technology Tutorial ISO Plaintiff Strikefoce Technologies Inc. 's Claim Construction Brief in mpg and wmv formats re Text Only Scheduling Notice,, 133 (Gnanadesigan, Abirami)
This was the last docket before the ruling.
For me, i wasn't following the SA case closely (paid more attention to other cases) and was not aware of them raising the 101 issue, my bad.
But at the same time, i don't recall anybody bringing this 101 issue to our attention, including you, considering the motion was filed on 7/21/17, except, recently when we learned that it was discussed at the SHM.
However, they didn't expect this abrupt ruling, I bet.
Since both parties were discussing claim construction and markman hearing until just 2 wks before the CA judge dropped the bomb. (Today's my review of all SA's dockets showing that)
Ref.:134 11/16/17 11/16/17 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Flash drive containing Technology Tutorial ISO Plaintiff Strikefoce Technologies Inc. 's Claim Construction Brief in mpg and wmv formats re Text Only Scheduling Notice,, 133 (Gnanadesigan, Abirami)
This was the last docket before the ruling.
For me, i wasn't following the SA case closely (paid more attention to other cases) and was not aware of them raising the 101 issue, my bad.
But at the same time, i don't recall anybody bringing this 101 issue to our attention, including you, considering the motion was filed on 7/21/17, except, recently when we learned that it was discussed at the SHM.
(0)
(0)
