So we lost the first skirmish of many, many to come. And as Gap pointed out, this issue did not bear on the merits of the case at all. So we move on.

TUTORIAL (Feb. 1)

Allotted time per side was agreed to be 1 to 1 1/2 hours. There was no mention of a DVD per se. But I believe J. Patel said something about a video recording, or something that would allow her to review it for herself prior to the Markman hearing.

MARKMAN HEARING (Feb 8)

It was agreed that 2 1/2 hours per side (5 hrs. total) would be sufficient. Parker Folse wanted Burst to go first in the Markman! Apple agreed. So we start off first on 2/8/07. Both sessions are scheduled first thing in the morning -- 9 AM. Apple v Burst will have her rapt attention both days!

Then the surprise (for me)! Addressing the judge, Parker said "She is very good, your honor, at explaining complex technology and how the Apple products are infringing." J: "That's good. I need to hear some good, clear explanations of this technology..."

So, apparently, Burst had hired two computer experts: one (female) for the "Power Point" presentation to the judge in the Tutorial, prior to the Markman hearing, and the other (Bershad) for general consulting and as a potential trial witness. Specialized computer experts! Why not? This case is BIG!

I'm guessing that the tutorial expert is the female computer scientist from Columbia U. in New York. Saw her in the Forgent Markman hearing in San Jose earlier this year. Steven Susman himself (Houston main office) argued the claims construction, and she did the tutorial prior to the claims debates. I thought her presentation was very well done. (The whole problem with Forgent's case on the JPEG patent is that it doesn't specifically state in Claim 1 that it applies to still-frame photography. It only mentions "video." Whether there will be an appeal of the Markman order, and/or a trial is unknown at this time. My gut feeling is that this case is not dead yet.)

Any way, the Columbian U. computer scientist (PhD) is very good, and I'd be very happy to have her explain the Burst technology to Judge Patel!

JOINT CLAIMS CHART

If you've downloaded the claims charts, you know that they are not all that informative. J. Patel agrees. So she instructed the parties to do an amended claims chart for all four patents. She wants them to define where are the differences in the claims terms. To do that she would like "more of a narrative" that comes after the proposed construction of each term.

I'm afraid I don't yet understand the patent concept of "means + function." This is an area to spend some research time on, because it is a key, maybe THE key issue, in defining the patent claims. So here, my notes are probably not very useful, but I believe I heard her say, "Maybe use an asterisk or something to show which claims are "means + functionality." Also, "I'd like something easier to read, rather than a chart... Something more of a narrative. Not a brief, but a way of articulating your positions."