Mark,

In light of what we know now, do you think some of your statements made about the MSJ are misleading?

The Northern District of California has held that, in cases such as this, “reverse engineering or its equivalent is required”: To satisfy Rule 11 and Patent L.R. 3-1, c

the burden was on TPL to prove 336 infringement to almost the same degree as required at a full blow trial.

Proof from reverse engineering is definitely required.

Unless TPL can and does show that type of proof, they lose the 336 against barco.>

Should you decide to provide your legal opinions again, your lack of any credibility needs to be taken into consideration. I trust that readers will then be reminded of the above statements.

Opty