Not just burdensome and oppressive, but extraordinarily so. LOL

Permitting unrestrained discovery in this complex case before a Markman ruling is issued, will be extraordinarily burdensome and oppressive on the Defendants, ...

Defendants will likely be weighing the estimated billable hours going forward against any settlement offers by EDIG. Also in the equation will be their calculated chances of winning the Markman or trial, and how high damages could go should they lose either. Of course there's always the issue of having to reveal the technical aspects of their devices to EDIG which I wouldn't think would be high on the Defendants list of things they want to do. LOL

I see today's ruling as very significant in this case and could be a game changer. LL also finds it good for EDIG -- he sent me the following email.

--------

Discovery orders are not generally appealable because usually they are not final decisions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 692, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3099, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); In re Reyes, 814 F.2d 168, 170 (5th Cir.1987); Honig v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 404 F.2d 410 (5th Cir.1968).3 Section 1291's finality requirement "embodies a strong congressional policy against piecemeal reviews, and against obstructing or impeding an ongoing proceeding by interlocutory appeals." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 691, 94 S.Ct. at 3099.