<Defendants’ Position:

Defendants do not believe that further depositions on these narrow points are necessary. The parties have already submitted expert declarations and deposed the experts on the first issue identified by the Court (Talbot). There is nothing “new” about Defendants’ position; it was set out in declarations accompanying both the claim construction briefing (see Ex. A at ¶¶ 3-9) and in opposition to HTC’s motion for summary judgment (see Ex. B at ¶¶ 14-20). Defendants believe that Plaintiffs’ desire for discovery demonstrates that there was no clear and unambiguous disclaimer—if further extrinsic evidence is required then, by definition, the alleged disclaimer is not “clear and unambiguous.”>

I do not believe the schedule included any new expert depositions.So it will be a reshash of the same expert opinon.Not sufficient to sway the court first time around.Is there any reason to assume a different outcome the second time around?

I realize there is a different Judge, however the Special Master is still there and this is one of his assigned responsibilitlies.

<Furthermore, the Special Master shall have the authority to: g. Conduct pretrial conferences and hearings to establish:

(1) The substance of the claims and defenses presented in the case and of the issues to be decided;>

Opty