Perhaps it is simply due to my ignorance/lack of research, but I don't recall ever seeing a statement from an examiner that a change/amendment made in via the reexam process is a "required change" as opposed to other amendments where the examiner was silent or a statement made that the change/amendment "is not required". At least not in any of the reexams of the MMP.

Put another way, I suggest that ANY amendment to a patent (amended claims, deleted claims, added claims) made by the patent owner is typically made for but one reason - to overcome third party claims of prior art. Thus ANY change is a REQUIRED CHANGE. Per you, this would mean that any change is regarded "significant", regardless what that change might be.

While you say you would have difficulty arguing against your logic, I refer you to my earlier post where I depict the "lollipop" patent change. While that was a bogus, made-up example, it was intended to make a point in simple terms that anyone could understand. Changes could be made to clarify originally intent without altering scope.

And that point is exactly the point that Opty has tried to make, including details, regarding amendments to the '336. Then of course we had Henneman saying the same thing: amended for needed clarification to well, clarify, without broadening or narrowing the scope of the claims. And the latter, IMO, would be the gauge of "significance".

As for any resulting (post NIRC) amendment of Infringement contentions in litigation that is ongoing through the end of the reexam process, IMO this would make perfect sense. There would be a need to "bring the contentions up to date". So, as in the '336, if some patent claims are deleted and replaced with new claims that merely include better clarification as to what was originally claimed with the exact same intent and scope, it would be expected that Infringement contentions would be adjusted accordingly to properly refer to pertinent aspects of the patent. That is unless it would be preferred to refer to claims that no longer exist and ignore new claims, and try to effectively litigate from that base.

Can we now either agree or agree to disagree on the subject of significance of amendments to a patent as a result of reexam? IMO, it has been argued to death. Either agree, or agree to disagree, but end the thread unless you have something new and profound to offer.

Thank you,

SGE