"The Appellate Court, however, did uphold the lower court's application of collateral estoppel to the '774 patent, which is now expired"

So the CAFC said that CE still applies to '774 despite the fact that there was a re-examination and updates to the claim language which should have changed the claim construction issue surrounding RAM.

In other words as I understand this, the entire re-exam process is/was a waste insofar as the courts were concerned. It didn't (and perhaps should not have been expected to?) change the outcome regarding CE for '774.

There seems to be a definite disconnect between the courts and the PTO. I think the courts tend to rule with little consideration of any judgements or changes at the PTO (unless it suits their purpose). Admittedly I haven't yet read the full CAFC filing. Was there any explanation as to why the changes to '774 weren't enough to overcome CE?

- Sinkman