"From the above, one can hopefully see why the Markman process is so important — its resulting ruling can, especially in a case in which validity is not really at issue, be the lynchpin of the entire litigation. As a result, it is akin to a "mini-trial" on issues pertaining to potential liability, and is acknowledged as such by the lawyers — the hearing itself may take only a few hours or a day, but its importance cannot be downplayed. So, when someone says, "Well, we just need to take them to the Markman and set a precedent so that we can make other infringers fall in line", that sounds great — the problem is, no lawyer can guarantee victory, whether at the Markman or at trial.

Are you saying validity is not at issue in this case?

I tell yeah, I'm finding your assertions some what general....

IMO, this whole case is about validity and I would expect that to be the same for most all IP infringement. Some where along the line the issue of validity is put to rest....and is not necessarily focused on for subsequent cases.

doni