Can one of our Legal guru's please weigh in on this? I get nervious whenever I see Respondant's motions granted. Thanks in advance.
Respondents contend that this unexpected failure to address these important infringement issues constitutes
good cause to grant leave to accept their motions for summary determination. The Staff agrees.
In the Staff’s view, it appeared that the anticipated expert testimony regarding infringement
under the Staff’s and Respondents’ proposed constructions would have left a material issue of
fact in dispute that would have precluded Respondents from seeking summary determination of
noninfringement. However, as Dr. Oklobdzija did not address the Staff’s or Respondents’
proposed constructions of the “entire oscillator” limitations, the Staff is of the view that cause
exists for Respondents to proceed with their motions for summary determination.
For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ motions for leave should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ R. Whitney Winston
