common as litigation proceeds and as discovery and motion practice provide more information on both the law and the facts. See Medtronic Navigation, Inc. v. BrainLAB Medizinische Computersysteme GmbH, 603 F.3d 943, 959 (Fed.Cir.2010) (“A decision by a party to narrow its case for presentation to a jury does not generally suggest manipulation of the litigation process, and we see nothing improper in Medtronic’s decision to narrow its infringement claim in this case.”); Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc., 908 F.Supp.2d 1231 (N.D.Ala.2012) (“Abbott also did not engage in litigation misconduct by changing its litigation strategy after receiving an unfavorable claim construction ruling.”); cf. Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Management, LLC, 445 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The court finds that PrinterOn conducted an
holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that a party was not judicially estopped from departing from a claim construction theory unsuccessfully advocated before the trial court holding that licensee was not estopped from challenging the validity of a trademark