Absent from that article is one distinct difference between the Reese case and our case, that being the fact the some claims of some of our patents in suit have since been through a USPTO re-exam resulting in certain patent claims being amended. Thus, the prior Claims Construction in CO is no longer pertinent because the wording/interpretation of amended claims have definitely changed. We thus are now not asserting the same accusation of infringement of our decidedly (per USPTO) valid patents as previous.

FWIW, and purely from my possibly flawed understanding of our situation - corrections welcomed....

SGE