<Do you really think TPL initially approached Barco, and then in the subsequent 2+ years, has still not provided some level of sufficient and quantifyable evidence, that at the very least Barco would know could be further packaged or developed and would withstand the scrutiny of a courtroom to support TPL's claim ?>
Do I think that TPL has not researched the chips in that time frame? I'm sure they have.
Do I believe they have sufficient and quantifyable evidence? I can only hope so.
Do I believe the process of producing sufficient and quantifyable evidence is easy? I do not. I suspect there are all kinds of difficulties encountered with certain patent claims.
Do I believe that in the license negotiation phase TPL might use claim terms in the broadest sense. Sure do.
Do I believe that they would willingly define the scope of those claims in litigation before it was necessary to do so? I believe they would not.
Do I believe that providing the evidence necessary to defeat the SJ motion might be used to narrow the claims during the Markman claim construction. Most certainly do.
Thought by asking and answering the above, I might save myself some time.
Opty
