RE: Display daily26 Jul 2022 13:20
Many Thanks for the link (i was looking at the motion numbers ..
I think the Nanoco reponse to 133 is noe od the clearest, written in plain english responses you are going to get.. Having read the samsung motion i was confused .. Having read the Nanaco I am not ... The tome almost has an element of bewilderment and sarcasmr at the approach taken and slaps it down with some very clear statements - Accusing Samsungs layers of attempts to "fool" the courts intelligence and deliberately removing /altering the classifications from the Markman and PTAB - Everyone invested should read that - Some of my favs below
By truncating Nanoco’s statement, Samsung also fails to disclose that Nanoco was repeating Samsung’s own expert’s testimony from this case applying this Court’s construction. This can hardly be a new position to Samsung warranting reconsideration now.
Samsung cannot now claim that its own expert testimony from this case, faithfully applying this Court’s construction, rises to the level of a manifest injustice requiring reconsideration of the very claim term Samsung’s expert was applying. That is both absurd and legally deficient.
The Court should not be fooled by these manipulations.
Nanoco’s opposition to this folly was entirely consistent with the Court’s claim construction and is not “new evidence” warranting a reconsideration now
As this Court recently noted in denying another motion for reconsideration of a claim construction order brought by Samsung, “[p]arties with clever lawyers can always think of something more to say, if given the opportunity,” but “[t]hat is not the test for reconsideration.”
Sign In
Follow the stocks
