Confident feeling about trial per couple points
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 478)
Posted On: 02/08/2019 6:24:37 AM
Confident feeling about trial per couple points
The SA lawyer IMO trying to confuse judges through the colored magic lense of Alice 101.
One was Rule 36 as persuasive, its a legal viewpoint/judgment a guide bit a precedent on a case. SA was trying to pander the basis of his position as being "legally persuasive"
SA Attorney was trying to slip rule 36 as persuasive (less than precedent) past judges to enhance his cases but Judge DYK exchange below shot it down!
The SA lawyer IMO trying to confuse judges through the colored magic lense of Alice 101.
One was Rule 36 as persuasive, its a legal viewpoint/judgment a guide bit a precedent on a case. SA was trying to pander the basis of his position as being "legally persuasive"
Quote:
Persuasive Authority Law and Legal Definition. Persuasive authority means sources of law that the court consults in deciding a case. It may guide the judge in making the decision in the instant case. But it is not a binding precedent on the court under common law legal systems such as English law.
SA Attorney was trying to slip rule 36 as persuasive (less than precedent) past judges to enhance his cases but Judge DYK exchange below shot it down!
Quote:
So I do want to note that’s a rule 36 afferent so we don’t know what the reasoning of this court was, but we do know.....
Judge: And it’s not precedent!
SA: That’s correct, it’s not precedent but it is persuasive. I believe under federal circuit rule #32.1.
So we what we know is the context of the claim there....
Judge: The rule 36 is persuasive??
SA: It, non-precedential dispositions are persuasive......
Judge: I don’t know remember any case that says a rule 36 disposition is persuasive.
SA: I believe-well, I guess your honor, is of course, free to decide however persuasive
The other was the exchange with Judge Newman regarding with SFORs patent was computer specific or not.
SA lawyer explaining his position in a manner like everyone accepted that the OOBA patent is not computer specific , trying hard to not say computer and OOBA in same sentence, using the word hacking to deny the obvious connection etc as has been posted here Judge Newman basically said "it was computer specific, it solves a computer problem". (boom!)
I think Judge Newman will be a guiding voice of reason on SFORs because in good conscious, it's impossible to ignore the obvious computer specific inventiveness of the OOBA patent, thus overturning this decision by eliminating whatever non computer specific analogies the SA lawyer was trying to confuse Judge DYK on , in their secure mail and bank pin and bank analogies exchange. IMO
I don't feel DYK will be a tough sell for Newman. Considering he a wrote the Anacora decision overturning Alice 101 in that computer specific case. He just needs a nudge, maybe not even that.
I don't believe DYK dug in his heels on any issue against SFORs patented OOBA being not computer specific, or not solving existing computer problem (hacking). I didn't hear anything significant he said against SFOR that would change newmans mind in the core issue. She was pretty definite!
Its good that they will review briefs , PTABS , oral argument, and all the hard evidence in the light of the orals arguments.
There is a lot here to be positive about IMO. Ropes and Grey also does bring a level of confidence to the Judges in their argument to the court as they are highly respected for their professionalism and thoroughness so I see them giving weight to what they argued, Especially with DH soeaking.
In Appeals court, a judges decision may hang sometimes on a single phrase or a word.
We will see , but because of the words and phrases mentioned in regards to the core of the issue is SFORs patented invention, OOBA a computer specific solution to a unsolved computer problem, like the Anacora argument , the above Judges comments to SA attorney (above) makes me feel guardedly confident !
I just don't see SA's weak delusional analogies winning the day here over the accepted patentability of the obvious inventiveness of SFORs computer specific OOBA software that solved an obvious computer specific problem. It would be pure delusion to believe an analogy of what is generally obvious to all. IMO
To not reverse the dismissal would mean they have to credulously believe a non computer analogy and disagree with the panel of expert PTAB panel who affirmed every claim of SFORs computer specific OOBA patent when contested. I just don't see it. I am not a lawyer , these are just my opinions. based on orals.
I will say this I feel more confident being on the side of SFOR vs the side of Secure Auth. I didn't hear anything compelling or wowing the judges from the SA attorney arguments.
We will see!
(11)
(1)