First of all, in my opinion, Handal's accusations are true, not false. The court did turn a "blind eye" to the re-exam patent '774 and did not follow the process of a claim construction. The Re-exam patent '774 never got a full and formal claim construction. The cal. court did a de factoanalysis using the prior court's (Col) decision, (which was flawed by the way according to your own opinion). A full and formal claim construction of the new claims was never held. Handal is claiming that anytime there are changes to the claims of a patent, a claim construction is the norm, not the exception. NO MATTER WHAT THE CHANGES ARE... and in my opinion, the changes to the claims are significant, but that's beside the point.

By the way, I'm refraining from further discussion with you. I do not appreciate your use of "name calling" in a public forum. It's unprofessional and I will not be part of it in a public discussion. Handal may hold a different opinion of the issues than you but that does not make them liars. So, for that reason, I choose to end this conversation.

End of discussion.