You asked:...

"Gil....is this stuff relevant or am I posting something that doesnt apply to us?"

Here is my view...

Opinions such as expressed by William Rooklidge and Mansi Shah,( usually in a La Review Article), are just that, OPINIONS. They are broad assumptions, by the authors supported by some case law to make the writer's point. They have NO application to specific set of FACTS and are not considered "Authority" in a Court of Law.

For example, there is no disagreement that, as authors say, there is "relatively high reversal rate in Markman decisions" (see below).

"The relatively high reversal rate has been suggested to stem from various reasons. Some have suggested that the high reversal rate results from the Federal Circuit’s insufficient guidance on claim construction."...

The Makman vs. Westview case was a tectonic shift in the LAW and it did not cover the "Details" of how it was to be applied. And 10 years is a very short time in the legal process before all the "KINKS" in it are worked out and addressed by the Courts of Appeal...

Clearly, fom what we know, the "Genius" of DM was the fact that they choose DENVER for their Markman Hearing, because they knew of the PHILLIPS CASE which had clearly worked out a clear guide lines to be followed by the trial courts withing its jurisdiction...

It is certainly clear that there is no question in OUR CASE that the trial judge does have clear guidance given to her by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, I agree with your observation that such issues as discussed in the article are not relevant and do not apply to EDIG'S CASE.

GLTA...

Gil...