Both parties agreed that they could do that for her, "since we have to do it for ourselves for preparation." So we should get some PACER docs that are more useful to us too!

For you lawyers out there, there was a lot of discussion regarding "112-6 issues." That would be Section 112, paragraph 6 of the code... There seemed to be agreement that there were 9 claims that had "112-6 issues."

(Maybe I should invest in a patent textbook. If only I had the time!!! There is no doubt, this is a fascinating, potentially very important case, in an important area of the law -- IP and patents. Those who can stick with it, will learn a lot about a lot of things! That's what turns lawyer on!)

BRIEFS:

Briefs are "staged" to come in during the period 30 days prior to the Markman hearing. J. Patel said she will read these, and at the start of the hearing "I may say: 'Here's the way I look at it. Show me where I'm wrong?'" She's sending a signal that she WILL be ready with her questions! She'll cut to the chase!

This is a highly experienced and competent judge! She is definitely up to the challenge of this highly technological case. And, we've seen from her decision on the Bershad issue that she is fair-minded and precise in her reasoning. She studies the issues, focuses in on THE critical issue, and then makes a firm decision based on all the facts. She is so highly respected in the profession that there were 3 young people dressed in business suits sitting in the jury box area (apparently law students) listening and taking notes during a number of cases being heard by J. Patel. They'd come to the right courtroom to learn from a master!

CHACHING!

In the "last, but not least" category we have the following. -- At the beginning of the hearing, the Apple v Burst case was called. As the attorneys entered the area in front of the judge, and to take their seats at the counsels' tables, J. Patel surveyed the group of 9 well-heeled lawyers and remarked something along the lines of, "When I see you fellows come in I want to say, 'Chaching.' But it's more like, 'Chaching, chaching, chaching!" After which one of the men replied, "Actually, we're doing it for love." Everyone had a good laugh and took their seats.

So, if we didn't already know it, that was a good indication from the J. Patel of the stakes in this case! This case is BIG -- she knows it, and is handling it accordingly. I would guess a rule of thumb for her "Chaching" would be about $100MM per. So that should make this a $300MM case!